^LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, 



I 



{ <r^."KI 2M 

# JM^ ..3.3 J 

|i : ^ 

! UNITED STATES OP AMERICA.! 



LETTERS 



ON THE 



ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST: 



IN WHICH THE OPINIONS OF THE 



REV. ADAM CLARKE, D.J)., LL.D, &c. fc. 



ARE 



REVIEWED AND REFUTED. 



BY THE/ 

V 

Rev. WILLIAM BEAUCHAMP. 



WITH AN INTRODUCTORY ESSAY, 



By L E R O Y M " LEE, D. D. 




CHARLESTON, S. C. : 
PUBLISHED BY JOHN EARLY, 

FOR THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH, SOUTH. 

1849. 






Entered according to act of Congress, in the year of our Lord 

1849, by 

JOHN EARLY, 

In the Clerk's Office of the Eastern District of Virginia. 



E. B. MEARS, STEREOTYPER. 
SMITH AND PETERS, PRINTERS. 



21 
& 

> 



PREFACE. 



Unprotected orphanage presents, in the necessi- 
ties of its nature, one of the most affecting appeals 
for sympathy that ever addresses itself to the heart of 
humanity. "The milk of human kindness/ 7 unless- 
its channels have been dried up by a life of cruelty 
and crime, flows spontaneously for its relief and 
support: and we feel, while mitigating its sorrows, 
that we are not only engaged in an office that is 
good in the sight of God, but we are doing a work 
which " the angels that fell not" 7 might emulate, and 
shout over the privilege of assisting. Posthumous 
publications have a very strong resemblance to or- 
phans. They are often the first conceptions of minds 
capable of vast and brilliant achievements, hastily 
drawn, and as hastily fashioned into life and form : 
and then, perchance, laid aside for a convenient 
season that the increasing engagements of time never 
yield. And, in after years, when the mind that 
conceived them is abroad exulting among the won- 

(3) 



IV PREFACE. 

ders of the Spirit-land, and the hand of the author 
is still in the solitude of the grave, they come forth 
to meet the vicissitudes of orphanage without a heart 
to love, or a hand to guide them. Life ; even under 
such discouragements, is not always unsuccessful 
or unhappy. There is a Providence that shapes the 
ends of the offspring both of the loins and of the 
mind. It is sometimes the case that the child, to 
pursue the figure, ascends to a higher condition of 
life, and sheds a blessed light of joy and truth, through 
a wider and more enduring sphere of influence than 
was ever dreamed of, or hoped for, by the ambition 
or anxiety of the paternal mind. Such, we venture 
to predict, will be the history of these Letters on the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ. 

Nearly twenty-five years have elapsed since the 
author of these Letters ceased from his labours in 
the outer temple of Christianity. He was the author 
of several valuable works: among them a treatise 
on the Evidences of Christianity, and also an essay 
on Ecclesiastical Government. The one before us 
is, perhaps, his latest composition, and it is believed 
it will compare favourably with either of his other 
works. It was written in the vigour and maturity 
of his intellectual powers; and was the result of long 
years of careful and patient study — studies, super- 
induced by the necessities of a position demanding 
zeal for "the truth as it is in Jesus/ 7 and claiming, 
as well for the maintenance of a good conscience 
as for the preservation of the flock of Christ, that 
he should "contend earnestly 57 against a class of 



PREFACE. V 

heresies that contravened and destroyed "the faith 
once delivered to the Saints.*' In the earlier periods 
of his ministry ; he had witnessed the wasting and 
desolation of the Arian and Pelagian heresies in the 
land of the Pilgrims and among the hardy pioneers 
of the West. He had withstood them to the face, 
because they were to be blamed. Systematic and 
persevering efforts had been made to plant them 
among the early settlers of the West. Their advo- 
cates were on the frontiers. They were industrious 
and energetic. It is not surprising that partial suc- 
cess crowned their zeal. But it is humiliating to 
confess that these erroneous and false doctrines had 
found a lodgment among the Methodist Societies 
previous to 1810. This was a source of sincere sor- 
row to those whose duty it was to w T atch over the 
flock of Christ. They bewailed the prevalence of 
the error, and sought to drive it away from those of 
whom they had the spiritual oversight. Many en- 
tered into this contest for the truth. No one was 
more zealous, or spread his efforts over a wider 
space, or through a longer period, than the author 
of these admirable Letters. He opposed them by 
every form of hostility authorized by the gospel of 
Christ — preached, prayed, and wrote against them, 
with the uncompromising hostility of a sincere con- 
viction that they were "'damnable heresies.'" As 
an auxiliary to these measures to oppose and put 
down these evil workers, the friends of sound doc- 
trine resolved to establish a periodical to be devoted 

mainly to this object. Accordingly 7 the Western 
1* 



VI PREFACE. 

Christian Monitor, a monthly publication, was com- 
menced in Chilicothe, Ohio, in 1816. Of this 
Magazine, Mr. Beauchamp was the Editor; and 
while he presided over its affairs it was conducted 
with distinguished ability. Contemporary authority 
informs us that it contributed very materially to the 
exposition and suppression of the heresies that denied 
divinity to Christ, repudiated the sacrificial character 
of his death as an expiation for sin, and sought to 
establish the doctrine of man's inherent freedom 
from guilt and condemnation. Besides this, it spread 
the leaven of pure doctrine through all the ramifi- 
cations of Western Methodism, extinguished the 
false lights that false teachers had kindled, and left 
it glowing and joyous beneath the converging rays 
of the Sun of Righteousness. 

Subsequently to 1816, Mr. Beauchamp united 
with Dr. Thomas Hind, entensively known in the 
Church, during the period we are considering, as 
Theophilus Arminius, in forming the settlement of 
Mount Carmel, in Illinois. Here, as an instructor 
of youth, as pastor of the flock, and as friend and 
adviser of all, he was eminently useful. But he 
possessed qualities of a different kind, that enlarged 
his usefulness, and contributed greatly to his influ- 
ence. He "was well versed in nearly all the me- 
chanical arts. He has been known to build a house, 
make a clock, and repair watches. He was par- 
ticularly delighted with the use of tools, and was 
fond of working at the cabinet business. The writer* 

* Theophilus Arminius, Meth. Mag. 1825, p. 51. 



PREFACE. Vll 

has seen him work in brass ; iron ; and wood, repair 
the firelocks of the hunters, so essentially necessary 
in a new country; repair and ornament his compass, 
and build a mill. All this he did, although never 
trained to any particular branch of business." But 
he has higher claims to our consideration. His 
educational advantages were limited. He mani- 
fested, at an early period, a taste for books, and a 
desire to acquire knowledge. But in the frontier 
settlements he had few opportunities for improve- 
ment. Yet such as were accessible, he used with 
avidity. Intervals of leisure during the toils of the 
day were spent in providing torches for the night, 
and with these, when the family had retired to rest, 
he would stretch himself upon the hearth, a devotee 
at the shrine of knowledge. The habits of study 
thus formed, continued to distinguish him to the 
latest periods of his life. His profiting appeared 
unto all. He was an excellent physician, a proficient 
in several sciences, a master of logic, a good lin- 
guist, and a profound theologian. As a preacher, 
he had few, if any superiors in his day. He com- 
menced preaching in the nineteenth year of his age, 
entered the Itinerancy in 1793, and after filling suc- 
cessively some of the most prominent stations then 
in the Church, he located in 1801. In this relation, 
he was as diligent in study, and as industrious in all 
mental and spiritual employments, as when engaged 
in the exclusive work of the ministry. It was during 
this period he mastered the Greek, and became a 
critic in the Latin and Hebrew languages. His 



V1J1 PREFACE. 

severest mental labours were performed amidst the 
presence of all sorts of physical occupations. He 
was diligent in business, a great economist of time ; 
and his time was always usefully employed. The 
works he composed and left behind him, are a proof 
of his industry. Besides those already mentioned, we 
may enumerate these : A volume on the Eternal Son- 
ship ; Translations of Hebrew texts with comments ; 
An Essay on Slavery ; An Essay on the Divine Law : 
A brief view of the latter day glory, and of some 
events with which it is connected; An English 
Grammar, &c. &c. In 1822, he re-entered the 
Itinerancy in the Missouri Conference, and was 
stationed in St. Louis. In 1823, he was placed on 
the Indiana district. He was a member of the Gene- 
ral Conference of 1824, and was nearly elected to 
the Episcopal office. His work was well nigh fin- 
ished. In 'the autumn of this year, in the active 
discharge of his duties, he was arrested by disease, 
and soon after exchanged the toils of earth for the 
triumphs of heaven. He rests from his labours, and 
his works follow him. In these, " he, being dead, 
yet speaketh. ;? 

Richmond, February, 1849. 



INTRODUCTION. 

Most of the controversies with which the 
Christian interest has been afflicted have been 
occasioned by misapprehensions concerning 
the person of Christ, and the character of the 
atonement made by his death upon the cross. 
It is the design of revelation to set forth the 
truth upon each of these subjects; that our 
faith, rightly discerning and apprehending the 
truth, might find its vindication and support 
u not in the wisdom of men, but in the power 
of God." And it is one of the first and most 
pressing duties of those who have cc come to 
the knowledge of the truth," to illustrate and 
defend what was the mind of the Spirit when 
He spoke of " the sufferings of Christ, and the 
glory that should follow." Many false opinions 
have gone out into the world. These all mis- 
represent " the only begotten Son of God," 



X INTRODUCTION. 

deny him as the divine Mediator, and refuse 
to receive him as the Saviour of Sinners. He 
is thus set at nought ; his person despised and 
rejected, and his atonement lightly esteemed, 
or » counted an unholy thing." Every care- 
ful student of the Word of God must perceive 
not only the viciousness of such opinions, but 
their utter destructiveness to all the motives 
and reasons for soundness of faith and holi- 
ness of life. And every one who has attained 
to "the knowledge of salvation by the remis- 
sion of sins," must feel a desire to recover 
such as have embraced these errors, equal at 
least to the strength of his own perceptions of 
the truth, and to the ardour of his love for Him 
who " died for our sins, and rose again for 
our justification." The attempt, therefore, to 
enlighten and save, is no less the offspring of 
duty than the dictate of charity ; and while 
hope enlivens the labour, success will be 
crowned with the glory of " saving souls from 
death, and hiding a multitude of sins." 

" With respect to the person of Christ, opi- 
nions have assumed every possible form. His 
Divinity and humanity have been denied, with 
a vehemence at least equal to that with which 



INTRODUCTION. XI 

his compound nature as the God-man of 
revelation has been derided and rejected. 
This conflict of opinion shows the freedom 
with which human reason canvasses the great 
facts and principles of Divine inspiration ; and 
almost justifies doubt upon subjects on which 
even good men have differed so widely. But 
it is a solace to know T that " the truth as it is 
in Jesus" is made known in the Word of God, 
and is susceptible, if not of positive demon- 
stration (to concede something, in charity to 
the prejudices of our opponents), at least 
of complete and satisfactory proof and de- 
velopement to minds submissive to the teach- 
ings of Eternal Wisdom. There is truth 
— sufficient, comprehensive, and convincing 
— as to the person of Christ ; and that truth 
has been revealed to man. And the truth 
thus revealed, is important as an integral 
element of the faith, whereof cometh salvation. 
It is, therefore, a dictate of duty, enlivened 
by all the considerations requiring a true faith 
in Christ, to study the testimony God has 
given concerning his Son ; and we are as- 
sured, the research, if guided by a devout 
submission to the authority of the words 



Xll INTRODUCTION. 

" which the Holy Ghost teacheth," will issue 
in knowledge of the truth, and exemption 
from opposing falsehood and destructive error: 
" Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall 
make you free." 

The Supreme Godhead of Jesus Christ is 
distinctly revealed ; and has been received 
with a nearly universal assent, as one of " the 
first principles of the oracles of God. 1 ' But 
the doctrine of the divine eternal Sonship of 
our Lord, although equally established by the 
Word of God, has met with a very different 
reception. Since the promulgation of the 
erroneous opinions of Arius, the divine filiation 
of Christ has been boldly controverted, or 
pertinaciously rejected, by many assuming the 
name and wearing the garb of Christians. 
In the early part of the fourth century this 
heresiarch denied the proper divinity and 
eternal Sonship of Christ. The occasion 
selected for the declaration of his heretical 
notions involves his character, in the judgment 
of some theological writers, in the suspicion 
of being actuated by impure motives and 
malignant feelings. "It is said he aspired 
to episcopal honours ; and after the death of 



INTRODUCTION. Xlil 

Achilles, A. D. 313, felt not a little chagrined 
that Alexander should be preferred before 
him."* Intellectually he was certainly supe- 
rior to his more fortunate competitor. But 
whether his defeat operated to produce a 
change in his opinions, or provoked him to 
declare his real sentiments concerning Christ, 
which he may have previously held, but 
cautiously concealed from the church, it is 
difficult at this distance of time to determine. 
It is, however, a fact, that the elevation of 
Alexander w T as the occasion of their develope- 
ment. " One day," says the authority already 
quoted, " when his rival had been addressing 
the clergy in favour of the orthodox doctrine, 
and maintaining in strong and pointed lan- 
guage, 'that the Son of God was co-eternal, 
co-essential, and co-equal with the Father,' 
Arius considered this as a species of Sabel- 
lianism, and ventured to say, that it was 
inconsistent and impossible, since the Father, 
who begat, must be before the Son, who was 
begotten ; the latter, therefore, could not be 
absolutely eternal." Opinions so obnoxious 



* Watson, Theo. and Bib. Dictionary, Art. Arius. 
2 



XIV INTRODUCTION. 

in themselves, and so variant from the long- 
established faith of the church, could neither 
be connived at nor tolerated. Arius was 
first admonished, then efforts were made to 
convince him of his error, and he was borne 
with for a season ; till, finding him pertinacious 
in the maintenance of his opinions, and 
labouring to propagate them, the zeal of 
Alexander was roused, and calling a council 
of his clergy, A. D. 320, he proceeded to 
depose him from the ministry, and excom- 
municate him from the fellowship of the 
church. But error travels fast, and increases 
rapidly. The leaven of this heresy continued 
to spread, until a general council of the 
church was convened, A. D. 325, in the city 
of Nice, by order of the Emperor Constantine, 
and for the especial purpose of suppressing 
this heresy ; when he and his doctrines were 
again condemned, and the true faith of 
the church was declared to embrace the 
proper divinity and eternal Sonship of Jesus 
Christ. The heresy thus introduced, though 
variously modified, and ever departing more 
grievously and fatally from the true doc- 
trines of the Gospel, and regularly descend- 



INTRODUCTION. _ • XV 

ing to a lower depth of spiritual indiffer- 
ence, has come down to our own times ; and, 
through the rushing tide of its tributary, 
the less licentious, but equally shallow and 
turbid stream of Unitarian theology, is emptied 
into the Dead Sea of modern Universalism, 
upon whose shores, and in the depths of whose 
stagnant and putrid waters, no living thing is 
found. It is a truth, well attested by all the 
facts of the Christian history, that the doctrine 
condemned, as we have seen, by the first 
general council of the church, has always 
seemed to be under the ban of Him, whose 
glory it would obscure, and whose Godhead 
it denies. Individuals who have embraced 
it, have added nothing to the purity of their 
character, or their experience of the grace 
and mercy of God. Organized religious sys- 
tems, built upon this foundation, have been 
shorn of their strength, or left as monuments 
of the displeasure of God. They are mau- 
soleums of the spiritually dead. No breath 
of God breathes upon the dry bones of that 
valley of death, to revive and enliven its mul- 
titudes of dead ; and the valley, instead of 
being instinct with life under the stirring in- 



XVI INTRODUCTION. 

fluences of a pure faith, is only a receptacle 
for the dying and dead — poisoned by drug- 
ging the well of life with a doctrine that, 
rightly estimated, repudiates the atonement 
of Christ, and denies the existence of real 
guiltiness in man. Affecting to receive the 
word of God, as a revelation, it measures it 
by the low and defective standard of its own 
ability to gauge its doctrines and fathom its 
mysteries ; and, despite its promise to obey 
Him "that speaketh from heaven, 5 ' it dog- 
gedly disputes the authority that commands 
M all men to honour the Son, even as they 
honour the Father. 1 " Refusing this honour to 
the Son, they have failed in their allegiance 
to God, and the Trinity in Unity have re- 
sented the indignity by abandoning them to 
the corrupting influences of an impure faith 
and a false worship. If the facts of their 
continued existence and numerical strength 
be alleged as an offset to this conclusion, it 
may be stated in reply, that the history of the 
error furnishes no proof of having ever " con- 
verted a sinner from the error of his ways ;" 
and it can scarcely be. affirmed that it in- 
volves the doctrine of conversion, either as a 



INTRODUCTION. XV11 

necessity of our nature or a privilege of the 
Gospel. And the seeming miracle of its con- 
tinuance and success, may be explained by 
the facts " known and read of all men," 
that, preceding , in any community, purer doc- 
trines and a more spiritual worship, it only 
aims to make converts to an opinion ; and is 
silent on the subjects of repentance, faith, and 
holiness, or, if it speaks, it is to " darken 
counsel by w T ords without knowledge ;" and 
only succeeds in making a vicious life quad- 
rate w T ith an impure faith. Or, if it follow in 
the wake of those preaching repentance and 
remission of sins by faith in Christ, it finds 
the elements of its strength, and the means 
of its enlargement, in giving refuge to those 
who have paused in their Christian course, 
and turned aside from the holy command- 
ments delivered unto them. Thus, from the 
beginning, "denying the Lord that bought 
them," putting him to an open shame, and 
trampling under foot the blood of the Son of 
God, their character and history explain the 
denunciations of Scripture, and vindicate the 

Divine justice in leaving them, in hardness of 

2 # 



XV111 INTRODUCTION, 



heart and blindness of mind, « to believe a 
lie," and to M die in their sins." 

But greater and more destructive errors are 
found in connexion with the doctrine of re- 
demption by the death of the cross, than in 
misapprehensions respecting the person of Je- 
sus Christ. Error makes him a good man, a 
martyr to his zeal for the reformation of his 
countrymen in faith and manners, and, in life 
and death, an example to all ages of goodness 
and devotion to truth and righteousness. It 
yields him no higher merit, pays him the tri- 
bute of no profounder homage than having 
illustrated a virtue which every man, inde- 
pendently of him, may emulate and attain. 
But truth teaches that he was « God mani- 
fested in the flesh ;" that by the conjunction 
of divinity and humanity in him, he was con- 
stituted " Mediator between God and man ; 75 
that his death was a voluntary sacrifice for 
the sins of the world ; and that, except 
through him, as Redeemer, Advocate, and 
Saviour, there is no remission of sins, and no 
hope of salvation for man. Indeed it makes 
him " all and in all" to the system of God's 
remedial measures for the recovery and re- 



INTRODUCTION. XIX 

demption of mankind. In a word, it was by 
the death of Christ upon the cross, that sin 
was atoned for ; Divine justice propitiated ; 
and provision made for reconciliation between 
God and man. This is the doctrine of the 
Gospel, as to the atonement made by Jesus 
Christ. This atonement is the only founda- 
tion of our hope in the mercy of God. But we 
misapprehend the nature of atonement, if we 
suppose the sufferings of Christ had any part 
or lot in the matter. Mere suffering has no- 
thing virtuous or vicarious in it. It was not 
by a death of suffering, but by the suffering of 
death, as a judicial act, and especially by the 
shedding of blood in death, that atonement 
was made. The sufferings of Christ sustain 
a very important position in the Gospel of the 
grave of God, bat they are never represented 
as identical with atonement, or as involving 
any of its elements. All his sufferings, from 
his birth to his crucifixion, if considered in 
their reasons and intentions, may be thus clas- 
sified : 1. Those which were necessary to the 
fulfilment of the predictions concerning his 
humiliation and trials as " a man of sorrows, 
and acquainted with grief;" and which were 



XX INTRODUCTION. 

to constitute an important element of the proof 
of his Messiahship. 2. Those which, accor- 
ding to the appointment of God, were requi- 
site to the perfection of his own character as 
"the captain of our salvation." 3. Those 
which in their nature and causes were intend- 
ed to illustrate the trials and temptations of 
Christian life, and their opposite virtues ; and 
to teach us, by his own example of gentleness 
and patience, how we ought also to walk, and 
to please God in all things. In this classifi- 
cation we perceive the reason of Christ's suf- 
ferings, but we seek in vain for any Scriptural 
identification of them with the atonement 
made by his death upon the cross. Even that 
most solemn and affecting scene in the garden 
the night preceding his crucifixion, — when, 
"being in an agony, he prayed more earnest- 
ly : and his sweat was as it were great drops 
of blood falling down to the ground" — is 
never referred to as possessing any qualities 
of atoning efficacy or merit. Although blood 
was shed, and under circumstances sublimely 
awful and impressive, yet we do not refer to 
it, in our creed or our affections, as the blood 
of atonement, nor, in our estimate of the price 



INTRODUCTION. XXI 

of our redemption, do we comprehend aught 
beside the blood shed upon the cross. It was 
then, we repeat it with emphasis and earnest- 
ness, in the act of dying, and by the shedding 
of blood in dying, that atonement was made 
for sin, and a sacrifice worthy of the occasion 
and the subject was offered to God. But the 
blood shed upon the cross, as an offering for 
sin, was the blood of the only begotten Son of 
God. Indeed, the apostle proceeds beyond 
the divine Sonship to discover and designate 
the exalted nature and priceless merit of the 
blood shed for our redemption ; and affirms 
of the church, that God "hath purchased it 
with His own blood." (Acts. xx. 28.) The 
essence of atonement, therefore, is to be found 
in the nature and character of Him, who pour- 
ed out his life unto death, and made his soul 
an offering for sin. " God manifested in the 
flesh" could only meet the grave demands of 
this great enterprise; and for " the joy that 
was set before him, he endured the cross, 
despising the shame, and is set down at the 
right hand of the throne of God." 

We are placing the atonement of Christ 
upon high and holy ground ; but not higher 



XXU INTRODUCTION. 

than is warranted by the Word of God, and 
the actual character of the sacrificial offering 
for sin. Nor, when we have placed our high- 
est estimate upon this great work of righteous- 
ness, can we transcend the design of God in 
setting forth his Son to be a propitiation for 
our sins, or lessen the obligation to seek the 
full stature of Christian manhood provided for 
in the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. 
Indeed, the developement, maturity, and per- 
fection of Christian character, must always 
depend upon the agreement of our own faith 
with the teachings of God's Word, as to the 
nature of redemption and the character of the 
Redeemer ; especially, since the Scriptures 
always identify the efficacy of atonement with 
the divinity of the sufferer; and make the 
righteousness of faith to depend upon the 
strength and accuracy with w T hich it embraces 
Jesus Christ as the Son of God, and the 
Saviour of the world. 

The publication of Dr. Clarke's speculations 
on the doctrine of the divine Sonship of 
Christ, in his notes on Luke i. 35, was a 
source of great surprise to many of his per- 
sonal friends, and of profound sorrow to the 



INTRODUCTION. XXlli 

Wesleyan Methodist Connexion in England. 
They were the occasion of a controversy of 
several years' continuance, in which his er- 
roneous reasonings were successfully exposed 
and refuted, especially by the Rev. Richard 
Watson, in a pamphlet entitled " Remarks 
on the Eternal Sonship of Christ ; and the 
Use of Reason in Matters of Revelation; 
suggested by several passages in Dr. Adam 
Clarke's Commentary on the New Testa- 
ment." Others entered into the debate, 
sides were taken, and the peace and orthodoxy 
of the body were seriously threatened ; until 
the Conference, as a necessary rule for self- 
preservation, resolved to admit no one to the 
exercise of ministerial functions " who denied 
the divine and eternal Sonship of Christ." 
By this means the orthodox doctrine of the 
Church was maintained, and peace and kindly 
feelings were again restored. It is due, how- 
ever, to the memory of Dr. Clarke, to say 
he was a firm and constant believer in the 
Supreme Godhead of Jesus Christ. 

The issue of Clarke's Commentary from 
the press in this country, soon after its publi- 
cation in England, awakened the fears of the 



XXIV INTRODUCTION. 

friends of the orthodox doctrine concerning 
the personal character and atoning sacrifice 
of Christ, lest his speculations on the eternal 
Sonship of our Lord might unsettle the faith 
of the church and introduce heretical opinions 
into the pulpit. That his views gained adhe- 
rents, we think highly probable, but we are 
not aware that they have ever been the occa- 
sion of injury or trouble to the church. But 
it was the fact of their adoption, or the fear 
of their prevalence, that led to the composition 
of the Letters we are introducing to the con- 
sideration of the reader. At that period the 
opinions of Dr. Clarke were held in the high- 
est estimation by the Methodists on both sides 
of the Atlantic ; and there were just grounds 
of fear, when the authority of his name was 
brought to the support of any theological 
question. It was to remove the weight of 
that authority, and to vindicate from its influ- 
ence the true doctrine of the Church concerning 
"Jesus Christ and him crucified," that the 
subjoined Letters were addressed to one, 
perhaps, perplexed by his reasonings, or con- 
founded by the confidence with which they 
were put forth as the authorized teaching of 



INTRODUCTION. XXV 

the Word of God. And most effectually do 
they avail for that object. 

Mr. Beauchamp brings to his work a mind 
endowed with talents of a very high order, 
well cultivated and matured, and peculiarly 
adapted to the course of reasoning required 
by the intricacies of the error he undertook to 
examine and refute. He was also remarkably 
qualified for the exigencies of such a dis- 
cussion, by his long and careful study of the 
Word of God. His argument is purely scrip- 
tural ; seeking to ascertain, by legitimate de- 
duction, what is " the mind of the Spirit," he 
brings his own mind into subjection to its 
teachings ; and refuses utterly to allow of any 
cavil or disputation against w T hat is written 
in the Law or the Prophets concerning Him 
who was « declared to be the Son of God 
w T ith power, according to the Spirit of holi- 
ness, by the resurrection from the dead." To 
whom these letters were addressed, what theo- 
logical circumstances elicited them, or w T hat 
effect they produced, are questions we are as 
unprepared to answer, as we are the ad- 
ditional one of why they have been so long 
kept from their true sphere of publicity and 
3 



XXVI INTRODUCTION. 

usefulness in the church. But we are glad 
they are at length liberated; and we have 
misapprehended their character, if they are 
not found to contain a complete and satis- 
factory vindication of the doctrine that gives to 
Jesus Christ the exclusive and distinguishing 
merit of being recognised on earth, and reve- 
renced among "the principalities and prsowe 
of heaven," as the Eternal Son of God : " be- 
gotten, 5 ' in the language of the Nicene Creed, 
" of his Father before all worlds ; God of God, 
Light of Light, very God of very God, be- 
gotten, not made, of one substance with the 
Father, by whom all things were made," &c. 
But the question at issue in this work is 
one of great practical importance to the church 
of God. As the atonement is the ground of 
our hope, so the atoning Saviour is the object 
of our worship and love. We owe a profound 
reverence to Jesus Christ, both as " the Son 
of the Highest" and as the Saviour of sinners. 
Obedience is the fruit of faith, and the proof 
of love. The Apostles worshipped Christ in 
every form of adoration, homage, and affec- 
tion ; and in this they have left us an example 
that we may wisely and safely imitate. In- 



INTRODUCTION. XXVI 1 

deed, it is a paramount duty of our Christian 
calling to follow them in all the indications 
of their affection for Christ, and devotion to 
his cause. Christ is the central sun of our re- 
ligious system. Our doctrines are only right 
as they harmonize with the doctrines of the 
cross. Our faith is only saving as it em- 
braces Christ as Saviour, Mediator, and In- 
tercessor. Our life is only spiritual as it is 
" hid with Christ in God ;" and we only ad- 
vance in the favour of God and fitness for 
heaven, in proportion as we become nothing 
that Christ may be all in all. 

L. M. L. 



LETTER I. 

General Remarks. 

St. Louis, May 6th, 1823. 

My Dear S 

I pledged myself, in a former letter, 
to offer you a few observations on the Sonship 
of Christ. Hitherto I have been prevented 
from redeeming this pledge, chiefly, by in- 
disposition of body. Accept of this as my 
apology for the delay. 

The doctrine of the Sonship of Christ must 
be highly interesting to us, both as Christians, 
and as ministers of the Gospel. It holds a 
distinguished place in the system of evan- 
gelical truth, and a vital relation to the eter- 
nal welfare of man. 

My communications will be made under 
the fullest persuasion of their being received 

3* 29 



30 ON THE ETERNAL 

with feelings of the most friendly nature, and 
regarded with the attention and candour which 
the importance of the subject demands. 

And hence, while they will be offered with 
affectionate regard, they will breathe the spirit 
of freedom, which ought to be cherished 
among friends. And so much the more I 
shall suffer myself to be led by the influence 
of such a spirit, as I have no hesitation in be- 
lieving that truth is the object you have in 
view in all your researches. 

If I can throw any light on this subject, so 
as to render it more pleasing and interesting 
to your own mind, and so as to aid you, in 
some degree, to defend the faith, my object 
will be effected. 

It must be obvious to the most superficial 
observer, that over all subjects, even those 
that are intimately connected with our eternal 
peace, the influence of authority is very great. 
The decisions of men, whose names have be- 
come famous on account of intellectual ac- 
quirements, bear along the mind with such 
controlling energy, as to lay restraint upon 
the freedom of its operations. The respect 
which we pay unto them, is likely to become 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 31 

excessive — because it is difficult to restrain it 
within proper limits. For the torrent of ad- 
miration, poured down the stream of public 
opinion, is too forcible to be resisted by us, 
while a consciousness of our inferiority un- 
nerves our arm. Our love of ease, pressing 
us in the same direction, completes the sub- 
mission ; and authority becomes the ground 
of our faith. It is far less laborious to rest 
our faith on the opinions of great men, than 
to test it by examination. But it is not less 
dangerous than it is easy ; for it is no uncom- 
mon thing to find men involved in errors of a 
pernicious tendency, while public opinion en- 
rolls their names on the records of fame, as 
the sons of superior wisdom. 

But I felicitate myself, and you, in the con- 
sideration that you will suffer nothing from the 
influence of authority, in any observations 
which I shall make on this subject. All their 
weight will consist of their own intrinsic 
worth. 

These remarks are made to guard against 
the absurdity of greedily swallowing whatever 
may be said by great men, without examining 
for ourselves ; and not to operate against rea- 



32 ON THE ETERNAL 

sonable respect for authority. There is a cer- 
tain degree of respect due to the opinions of 
great and good men, especially when they 
accord with each other. This should induce 
us to think favourably of their opinions, until 
we have examined for ourselves. 

However, the foregoing observations must 
be restrained to human authority. To the de- 
cisions of Heaven, we are obligated, by every 
principle founded in reason and interest, to 
bow with perfect submission. 

It has been thought by some that it is a 
matter of no consequence to have fixed prin- 
ciples respecting the Sonship of Christ. To 
believe that Christ is the Eternal Son of God, 
or to deny that he is such, is with them a 
thing of such indifference, as to render the 
subject unworthy of a candid examination. 
But whatever appearance of liberality this may 
wear, it will be found, when closely scruti- 
nized, to want the solidity of truth. If God 
has revealed anything on this subject, it can- 
not be a matter of indifference ; and that he 
has, I think, will appear evident from a dili- 
gent examination of the Holy Scriptures. 

All our great Reformers have received the 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 33 

Eternal Sonship of Christ, as a doctrine of re- 
vealed religion. It is found in all their creeds, 
directly or indirectly expressed. I acknow- 
ledge most readily, that this circumstance is 
not to be taken as proof of the doctrine — yet 
it should retain us on their side of the question 
until we have made a diligent inquiry, whether 
the doctrine is revealed in the Word of God. 
Such an inquiry, I am persuaded, will put 
us into possession of sufficient evidence to 
believe that Christ is the Son of God as to his 
divine nature. But if, after we have carefully 
examined the Sacred Volume, we are induced 
to believe that it contains no evidence of this 
doctrine, then it w T ill become necessary, in 
order to maintain consistency and propriety 
of conduct, to recede from the church to which 
we belong, before we deny the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ. For it is impossible to recon- 
cile our Articles of Religion with such a denial. 
That the doctrine before us is contained in 
the Holy Scriptures — that it is a leading prin- 
ciple in the system of evangelical truth — and 
that it has a special bearing on the mind, in 
relation to the possession of that divine nature 
which constitutes us the sons of God, and en- 



34 ON THE ETERNAL 

titles us to heavenly glory, I have no hesita- 
tion in believing. But before I approach the 
ground of this faith, it will be necessary to re- 
move some objections which lie in my way. 
After effecting this purpose, I shall produce 
proof from the Scriptures, of the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ. 

Before I close this letter, it will be proper 
to remark, that the doctrine in question does 
not depend on metaphysical reasonings for the 
evidence of its truth — nor can any serious 
impression be made on it by such reasonings. 
It rests a] one on revelation. Yet all the argu- 
ments, which have been urged against it, are 
of a metaphysical nature ; and, therefore, we 
shall be compelled to tread metaphysical 
ground, in order to show the fallacy of these 
arguments. But in doing this, our object will 
not be to produce direct evidence in favour 
of our faith in the Eternal Sonship of Christ — 
but to remove the rubbish with which this doc- 
trine has been encumbered. 

I am, very affectionately, 

W B . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 35 



LETTER II. 

St. Louis, May 9th, 1823, 
My Dear S ..... ;) 

In my last I made some general obser- 
vations relating to the Eternal Sonship of 
Christ. I now proceed to the discussion of 
this subject, in which the first thing proposed 
is, to consider the objections against the doc- 
trine in question. 

Every objection levelled against the doc- 
trine of the Trinity — of the supreme Godhead 
of Christ, and of the atonement made by God 
manifested in the flesh, strikes indirectly at 
the doctrine under consideration. Because, 
if these doctrines be not true, Jesus Christ 
cannot be the Son of God from eternity. 

But although I should be led, in consider- 
ing the objections which have been brought 
against these doctrines, to discuss subjects 



36 ON THE ETERNAL 

closely connected with the one in question ; 
yet, as I should be introduced into a wider 
field than I propose to survey in these letters, 
I am not at present disposed to take such an 
extensive range. And therefore I shall con- 
fine myself to such objections as are made by 
those, who, admitting the above doctrines, 
nevertheless deny the Eternal Sonship of 
Christ. 

If anything can be urged against the doc- 
trine which I espouse, with the least appear- 
ance of strength, we may expect to find it in 
the arguments of Dr. Adam Clarke. His bril- 
liant talents justify such an expectation. In 
his commentary on the thirty-fifth verse of the 
first chapter of St. Luke's Gospel, he holds 
the following language : — 

" The doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of 
Christ, is, in my opinion, anti-scriptural, and 
highly dangerous ; this doctrine I reject for 
following reasons :- — 

" First. I have not been able to find any 
express declaration in the Scriptures concern- 
ing it. 

"Secondly. If Christ be the Son of God 
as to his divine nature, then he cannot be 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 37 

eternal : for son implies a father ; and father 
implies, in reference to son, precedency in time, 
if not in nature too. Father and son imply 
the idea of generation ; and generation implies 
time in which it was effected, and time also 
antecedent to such generation. 

"Thirdly. If Christ be the Son of God as 
to his divine nature, then the Father is of 
necessity prior, consequently superior to him. 

"Fourthly. Again, if this divine nature 
were begotten, of the Father, then it must be 
in time, i. e. there was a period in which 
it did not exist, and a period when it began to 
exist. This destroys the eternity of our blessed 
Lord, and robs him at once of his Godhead. 

« Fifthly. To say that he was begotten from 
all eternity, is, in my opinion, absurd; and 
the phrase Eternal Son, is a positive self- 
contradiction. Eternity is that which has 
had no beginning, nor stands in any reference 
to time. Son supposes time, generation 7 and 
father ; and time also antecedent to such gene- 
ration. Therefore the conjunction of these 
two terms son and eternity is absolutely im- 
possible, as they imply essentially different 
and opposite ideas. 
4 



33 ON THE ETERNAL 

" The enemies of Christ's divinity have, 
in all ages, availed themselves of this incau- 
tious method of treating this subject, and, on 
this ground, have ever had the advantage of 
the defenders of the Godhead of Christ.' 5 

I have produced this long quotation, my dear 
S , . . . ., that I may place the arguments of 
our opponents in a fair light, and give them 
a candid consideration ; and that it may be 
manifest, at the same time, that nothing of real 
weight can be advanced against our doctrine. 
v or whatever can be offered against it may 
be supposed to wear the most plausible form, 
when coming from the pen of the learned and 
celebrated Dr. Clarke. 

I ought, perhaps, frankly to acknowledge, 
that it gives me no small gratification to have 
an opportunity of meeting objections against 
the doctrine in question, as they have been 
produced by a man of the first grade of tal- 
ents. Because, in this case, their weakness 
will not be attributable to the inability of the 
objector, but to the fallacy of their own 
nature. 

Before I enter into a particular consideration 
of the arguments contained in the above quo- 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 39 

tation, I shall offer a few remarks of a more 
general nature. 

1. « The enemies of Christ's divinity," says 
the Doctor, " have, in all ages, availed them- 
selves of this incautious method of treating 
this subject, and, on this ground, have ever 
had the advantage of the defenders of the 
Godhead of Christ." That some are charge- 
able with incautiously treating the subject of 
the Sonship of Christ, I shall not deny. But 
the extent of the application of this charge, 
may become a question; and, perhaps, before 
we have done w T ith this subject, it may appear 
to bear hard on even the Doctor himself. 

However, I am not prepared to admit, that 
even "on this ground," "the enemies of 
Christ's divinity" "have ever had the advan- 
tage of the defenders of the Godhead of 
Christ." This broad assertion needs a little 
proof; and the admission of it, I am appre- 
hensive, would imply that the advocates of 
the divinity of the Saviour have occupied 
ground less tenable than that of their adver- 
saries. I submit to your own judgment, 
whether the assertion now under consideration 



40 ON THE ETERNAL 

does not carry with it a greater appearance of 
indiscretion than of truth. 

2. I shall likewise leave it with you to judge 
whether it was not a very unhappy thing for 
the Doctor, that he brought into view the 
incautious method of others in treating this 
subject. For, to whatever length they may 
have carried their indiscretion, they must 
have found him close at their heels, when he 
penned the following sentence. " Eternity 
is that which has had no beginning, nor stands 
in any reference to time. 55 This assertion, 
contained in his fifth proposition, is so bold 
and daring, and marked with such a strong 
stamp of rashness, as to excite the highest 
degree of astonishment. 

No man, indeed, will dispute the first 
member of the sentence ; but who will pre- 
sume to defend the latter? What! does 
" eternity stand in no reference to time ? 55 or 
time bear no relation to eternity ? Is not eter- 
nity boundless duration? and is not time 
limited duration ? If they are both duration, 
is not their nature the same ? Is not time a 
part of eternity? No reasonable man will 
deny that it is. If time is a part of eternity ^ 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 41 

then, in the name of common sense, how can 
it be said, that " eternity stands in no reference 
to time?" The truth is, time has a close 
relation to eternity. 

You will see, my dear S , by this, 

how incautious some great men are, when a 
favourite hypothesis is to be established. The 
Doctor, in order to disprove the Eternal 
Sonship of Christ, asserted that the phrase 
"Eternal Son is a positive self-contradiction;" 
and for the purpose of establishing this posi- 
tion, advanced the rash sentence now under 
consideration. 

I think you will admit with me, that it will 
be very difficult for any man to prove that 
time and eternity are "essentially different" 
— since the nature of them both is duration — 
and since time cannot exist without eternity. 
I am yours affectionately, 

W B . 



42 ON THE ETERNAL 



LETTER III. 

St. Louis, May 13th, 1823. 
My Dear S , 

You will perceive, by attentively re- 
viewing the propositions quoted from Dr. 
Clarke in my last communication to you, that 
they contain two principles of argument. 
The one is intended to be founded on scriptu- 
ral ground ; the other on the implication of the 
term son, in connexion with its cognates. 
The former of these is included in his first 
proposition ; the latter, in the rest of them. 

The Doctor's first argument against the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ, runs in the follow- 
ing words : « I have not been able to find any 
express declaration in the Scriptures concern- 
ing it." The weight of this argument rests 
on his inability, to find the doctrine of the 
Eternal Sonship in the Word of God. I leave 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 43 

you to judge of the lightness of an argument, 
which is supported by the want of ability. 
Some, however, may be disposed to call the 
assertion in question ; believing it to be the 
want of disposition constituted by a predeter- 
mination to support a favourite hypothesis, 
rather than the want of penetration. But I 
wish to remain far from the arrogance of call- 
ing the assertion in question — for it is not my 
province to determine, to what extent his ina- 
bility may reach. But, however, it is my 
province to determine, that to receive the con- 
clusion growing out of his inability, would 
require more credulity than I am at liberty to 
exercise. I shall not contend, that the want 
of ability does not retain the Doctor under the 
necessity of remaining in darkness respecting 
the subject in question; but I shall contend, 
that his want can never impose such necessity 
on other men. 

It may be necessary to ascertain the pre- 
cise meaning of the phrase " express decla- 
ration/ 5 Does the Doctor mean, that the 
Scriptures do not expressly declare the Eter- 
nal Sonship of Christ, in so many words ? Or 
does he mean that no idea of the Eternal Son- 



44 ON THE ETERNAL 

ship of Christ, is expressly declared in the 
Scriptures ? 

If the former of these is his meaning, his 
proposition includes far too much — for it would 
lie with equal force against the doctrine of the 
Trinity. The phrase Eternal Son is not found 
in the Scriptures — neither is the word Trinity. 
But this is no argument against either of the 
doctrines. We must therefore understand him 
to mean, that no idea of the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ is expressly declared in the 
Scriptures. 

Now I have no doubt that the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ is revealed in the Word of God. 
The scriptural proof of this doctrine, however, 
I must lay over, until I have considered the 
other propositions of Dr. Clarke. 

You will perceive, in critically examining 
these propositions, that the reasonings which 
they contain are founded on two hypotheses, 
respecting the implications of the terms son, 
father, generation, and begotten. 

1st Hypothesis. The term son. with its 
cognates, must always imply a priority of es- 
sential being in the father, in respect to the 
son. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 45 

2d Hypothesis, The term son, with its 
cognates, must imply, in all its possible appli- 
cations, beginning of existence. 

Remove these two hypotheses, and the 
stately edifice, which has been reared upon 
them, will tumble into ruins. The principles 
contained in them constitute the whole ground 
of the argument, and run throughout the 
propositions now under consideration. There- 
fore, if these be removed, nothing will remain 
except the conclusion, which must follow the 
fate of the premises on which it is founded. 

In my subsequent communications, I shall 
attempt to prove that these hypotheses are 
false, and consequently, that the arguments 
founded upon them are without force. In the 
mean time believe me to remain, as ever, 
Yours affectionately, 

W B . 



46 ON THE ETERNAL 



LETTER IV. 

St. Louis, May 15th, 1823. 

My Dear S , 

In order to understand the metaphysi- 
cal reasonings of Dr. Clarke against the Eter- 
nal Sonship of Christ, it will be necessary to 
examine the principles on which they rest. 
These were noticed in my last letter, as being 
contained in two hypotheses. The first of 
these follows : — 

" The term son, with its cognates, must al- 
ways imply a priority of essential being in the 
father, in respect to the son" Now, if this 
position is not true, then the second and third 
propsoitions of Dr. Clarke are false — for they 
have no other foundation on which to rest, as 
you will easily perceive by candidly exam- 
ining them. 

It may be worthy of remark, that the hy- 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 47 

pothesis in question bears a very great resem- 
blance to the old Unitarian argument, "The 
son cannot be as old as his father." Indeed 
the same principle lies at the foundation of 
the argument in both ; the only difference 
being, that this old and often refuted proposi- 
tion is less qualified than the other. 

" The son cannot be as old as his father." 
We understand this expression in reference 
to man ; and we may remark the falsehood 
it contains. There is a sense in which it is 
true — and there is a sense in which it is false. 
In regard to the personal existence of man in 
the world, it is true, that the son is not as old 
as his father. But in respect to the essential 
existence of man, it is not true. 

There is something which forms the essence 
of every man, and constitutes his identity. 
In relation to this something , whatever it may 
be, the father has no priority to the son. This 
I mean to prove, in order to overthrow the hy- 
pothesis on which the Doctor has built his 
second and third propositions. ; 

We existed in Adam, because we came 
out of him. Nothing is more evident than 



48 ON THE ETERNAL 

that something cannot come from where it 
never existed. It is absolutely impossible 
that existence should arise out of non-exist- 
ence, unless it be under the influence of Al- 
mighty power. It will therefore follow, that 
we were created in Adam, or else that the 
Almighty creates every man at the time when 
he is conceived, or that man himself possesses 
the power of creation. 

The two last of these suppositions can 
hardly be admitted by sober Christians. The 
former is attended with insuperable difficulties 
in the mind of any one in possession of bibli- 
cal knowledge ; and the latter is so absurd, 
not to say impious, that it must be rejected 
with abhorrence by every reasonable man. 
We must therefore admit that every man has 
essentially existed from the time of the crea- 
tion of Adam. And hence it will follow, as 
an incontestable conclusion, that all human 
beings are coeval in essential existence : the 
father has no priority, in this respect, to the 
son. 

Some may endeavour to weaken the force 
of this conclusion, by attempting to involve it 
in obscurity. It may be asked, « How could 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 49 

we exist in Adam?" But you will readily 
perceive that the conclusion is not liable to 
be clogged by the difficulty of conceiving how 
we existed in Adam. For it is not the mode 
of being, but the ideality of it, which is con- 
cerned in the present question. As a matter 
of fact, it is not a subject of difficulty; and as 
to conceiving of the mode of essential exist- 
ence, it is not within the compass of human 
intelligence. 

Neither should any abatement be made 
from the weight of the foregoing argument, 
on account of any ideas arising in the mind 
in reference to virtual existence. What is 
virtual existence ! Are not the ideas excited 
by this question, like glimmering exhalations, 
arising, in the glow T of a summer's day, from 
the surface of the lake unruffled by the faintest 
breeze ? Are they not too fleeting to be 
arrested, too subtle to be detained, until they 
can be denned ? 

It appears to me, that the expression, 
virtual existence, has generated in the minds 
of some a class of indistinct and indescribable 
ideas. At the first view, they seem to bear 
some resemblance to reality ; but when we 
5 



50 ON THE ETERNAL 

attentively consider them, they vanish from 
before us. They are like thin vapours, which, 
when seen afar off, appear to possess some 
consistency ; but as we approach them, they 
gradually disappear. On the airy wings of 
such unsubstantial ideas, many a metaphysi- 
cian passes some dismal chasm which lies in 
his way. And when he has accomplished his 
purpose, when he has safely landed himself 
on the other side, he finds no difficulty in dis- 
posing of a troublesome thought. For he has 
only to point his wand at it, and it suddenly 
recedes into darkness, and makes way for the 
passage of his feet. 

It may be possible, however, to restrict the 
phrase virtual existence, to some distinct ideas. 
And when this is done, will it not mean, either 
power to produce being out of nothing, or 
pow T er to bring forward essential existence 
into another condition of being ? But in either 
of these cases, the phrase can have no appli- 
cation to the subject of existence, but only to 
the agent, by w T hich existence is produced, or 
brought forward. For it is too absurd to be 
admitted, that any being ever possessed power 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 51 

to produce itself; and we are taught by matter 
of fact, that the developement of essential 
being into personal existence, is by agency. 
In the first case, where virtual existence is 
understood to be power to produce being, it is 
nothing less than power to create ; and there- 
fore can never be attributed to man. And in 
the second case, where virtual existence is 
understood to be power to bring forward 
essential being into personal existence, there^ 
is nothing in the idea contrary to the thought, 
that we have really existed essentially from 
the formation of Adam — nay, it necessarily ; 
implies the truth of such a thought. 

Thus, on whatever side we turn our eyes, 
we find the doctrine of our pre-existence in 
our first parent, exhibited with sufficient evi- 
dence to induce belief. Every man, in regard 
to essential being, is as old as Adam. The 
father, in this respect, has no priority to the 
son. 

But I am not disposed to rest this question 
on metaphysical reasonings alone. Its im- 
portance, not only in relation to the subject 
of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, but also in 



52 ON THE ETERNAL 

respect to its bearing on religion in general, 
demands a more particular consideration. 

But it is time to close this letter. I shall 
resume the subject in my next. 
I am yours affectionately, 

W B . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 53 



LETTER V. 

St. Louis, May 19th, 1823. 

My Dear S , 

According to promise, I now resume 
the subject which I was discussing in my last 
communication to you. This is the doctrine 
of the pre-existence of men, in a state of 
essential being, from the moment of Adam's 
creation. To the argument contained in my 
last, and founded on the principles of reason, 
I now subjoin others, drawn from the Holy 
Scriptures. 

1. That we were created in Adam, we learn 
from the language of Moses. Then the heaven 
and the earth were finished, and all the host of 
them* 

All the host of them — you will think with 

* Gen. ii : 1. 

5* 



54 ON THE ETERNAL 

me, that this cannot be reasonably restricted 
to the original parents of the various orders of 
animal existence — but should be understood 
as including also the multitudes of living- 
creatures which were to proceed from them. 
That this is the idea which Moses intended to 
communicate, seems more than probable from 
another passage written by him : For in six 
days God created the heaven and the earth, the 
sea, and all that therein is* This we learn, 
that all that is, was created in six days. 

And in confirmation of this truth, we have 
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ: But 
from the beginning God created them male and 
female. \ 

God created them male and female — To 
whom does this refer ? At the first view, mis- 
led, perhaps, by an association of ideas, we 
may suppose that it relates only to Adam and 
Eve. But this would be making a great 
mistake indeed — for it would be rending the 
text from the context. 

The antecedent to the pronoun them, is 
certainly to be found in the question, to which 

*Exod. xx : 11. t Markx: 6. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 55 

the text is in part the answer: Is it lawful for 
a man to put away his wife? Here it is evi- 
dent that a man and his wife, that is, any man 
and his wife, and not Adam and Eve in par- 
ticular, is the antecedent to the pronoun them. 
And hence it is undeniable, that any man and 
his w T ife, and not Adam and Eve alone, were 
created from the beginning. All mankind 
were brought into essential being, in the 
creation of our first parents. The words of 
Christ are so directly to the point in question, 
that it w T ill be impossible to avoid the conclu- 
sion drawn from them, without violating the 
most evident principles of language. 

2. It is no small gratification to me, in which 
you will participate, that I have it in my 
power to place this subject under the sanction 
of the celebrated Apostle of the Gentiles. 
He places the doctrine of pre-existence, as it 
relates to human nature, in a very luminous 
point of view. He gives us the fullest assu- 
rance of its truth, by assuming it as the ground 
of one of his arguments, in favour of a doc- 
trine all important in Christianity. This argu- 
ment, advanced in support of the excellence 
of Christ's priesthood, and of its superiority 



56 ON THE ETERNAL 

over the levitical priesthood, is predicated on 
the doctrine of pre-existence. His reasoning 
proceeds on the ground of two facts. The 
first is, that the priesthood of Christ, according 
to the determination of the Divine Will, is 
after the order of Melchizedech ; and the 
second is, that Levi paid tithes unto Melchi- 
zedech in the loins of his father Abraham. 
With the first we have no concern in the pre- 
sent question. But the second affords the 
most conclusive evidence, that we received 
essential existence in our original parent. 
For it is impossible that Levi should pay tithes 
in the loins of Abraham, without having some 
real existence in him ; and if Levi had a real 
being in the loins of Abraham, he must have 
received that being in the creation of the 
original progenitor of mankind. The conse- 
quence of this is, that, since Levi can be 
placed, in regard to existence, on no other 
ground than one common to the human race, 
every man must have possessed essential 
existence in Adam. That the argument of 
St. Paul is founded on ground solid and indis- 
putable, will not be called in question by any 
one who reflects that the Apostle was not only 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 57 

among the greatest masters of reason, but was 
also possessed of that inspiration which ren- 
dered him infallible. 

In whatever light we view the premises on 
w T hich the Apostle's argument is founded, in 
the same light we shall be constrained to view 
the argument itself. And, therefore, as the 
strength of the Apostle's reasoning depends 
entirely on the solidity of the ground assumed, 
we cannot call this ground in question, with- 
out denying the truth of his conclusion. Were 
we to suppose that Levi existed in the loins 
of Abraham in some hypothetical sense, we 
should place the authority of the Epistle to 
the Hebrews in a very unfair and disagreea- 
ble light, by reducing this argument to a mere 
hypothetical deduction. For what is laid 
down in the premises, must come out in the 
conclusion. And were we to suppose that 
Levi existed in the loins of Abraham in some 
figurative sense, the argument founded on 
such existence would be no better than hypo- 
thesis. In proceeding in this manner, we 
should presume far too much. For we should 
not only rob St. Paul of the character of being 
a masterly reasoner, and deny his claim to 



58 ON THE ETERNAL 

Divine inspiration — but we should charge 
him with imposing on the world by sophistical 
reasonings, on a subject of the highest interest 
to mankind. 

I hope, therefore, that none will presume to 
suppose, that Levi existed in the loins of 
Abraham, in any sense less than real being — 
because such a supposition would implicate 
the Apostle in a very serious manner. 

To sum up what has been said on this ar- 
gument. If Levi really existed essentially in 
Abraham, he must have received such exist- 
ence in Adam ; and if Levi so existed in 
Adam, then all men were essentially formed 
when our primeval parent was created. To 
admit the pre- existence of Levi, and at the 
same time deny such existence to the rest of 
men, must necessarily involve us in gross ab- 
surdities. Therefore, it will follow with such 
force as cannot be reasonably resisted, that 
all men, in relation to essential existence, are 
equal in duration. The father, in this respect, 
has no claim to priority to the son. 

3. You w T ill permit me, my dear S , 

to present the question under consideration in 
its bearing on the fall of man. For although 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 59 

the arguments already offered are sufficient to 
place the principle for which I contend, be- 
yond dispute ; yet, as this principle is of the 
utmost consequence to my final conclusion, to 
accumulate evidence in its favour cannot be 
uninteresting to me, and may not be unac- 
ceptable to you. 

The doctrine of pre-existence is inseparably 
connected with that of human degeneracy. 
If the posterity of Adam had not been in him 
w T hen he fell, it would have been impossible 
for them, according to our conceptions of this 
subject, to have lost the enjoyment of holiness, 
immortality, and happiness, through his fall. 
Accordingly we learn from St. Paul, — that 
" death passed upon all men" — " through the 
offence of one many are dead" — "in Adam 
all die." 

Now it must be evident to the most inferior 
understanding, that we could not die in 
Adam, had we not existed in him at the time 
of his fall. 

Believe me to remain, 

Yours affectionately, 

W B . 



60 ON THE ETERNAL 



LETTER VI. 

St. Louis, May 22d, 1823. 

My Dear S ., 

In my former communications, I have 
endeavoured to prove that the term son does 
not simply, in relation to essential being, that 
the person to whom it is applied is subsequent 
to his father — that the term $ father and son, so 
far from implying inferiority of nature and 
subsequent existence in the son, imply that the 
father and son are equal in nature, and coeval 
in duration. 

And now, if I have succeeded in accom- 
plishing my purpose, then the first hypothesis 
of Dr. Clarke is utterly false, and the argu- 
ments predicated upon it are without founda- 
tion. Under a full persuasion that your can- 
dour will lead you to admit that the arguments 
which I have offered are sufficient to establish 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 61 

the positions I have made and to evince the 
falsehood of the hypothesis in question, I has- 
ten to the consideration of the subject in ano- 
ther point of view. 

The other hypothesis on which the argu- 
ments of Dr. Clarke are predicated, comes 
now 7 to be considered. u The term son, with 
its cognates, must imply, in all its possible 
applications, beginning of existence." 

The fallacy of this hypothesis, and the want 
of solidity in the arguments founded upon it, 
will appear if the following propositions be 
duly considered. 

1. Every term in application to man, must 
always imply limitation of nature, and begin- 
ning of existence. 

2. No term in application to Deity can 
imply limitation of nature, or beginning of ex- 
istence ; and therefore every term applied to 
him must always be taken in such a sense 
as is consistent with the divine infinitude. 

3. It is undeniably true, that the inspired 
writers have applied many terms to God 
which they have applied to man. 

4. It is not less undeniable that the impli- 

6 



62 ON THE ETERNAL 

cation of these terms, in both these appli- 
cations, cannot he precisely the same. 

5. Therefore there are terms, which are 
not inapplicable to the divine nature of Christ, 
although such terms imply limitation when 
applied to man. 

6. And therefore every argument, predi- 
cated on the implication of any term taken in 
the sense in which it is used in reference to 
finite beings, must be sophistical and destitute 
of strength, when the conclusion is drawn in 
reference to the infinite nature of God — be- 
cause in this case the conclusion must con- 
tain more than the premises. 

7. It w T ill be admitted, that the term son, in 
all its applications to man, implies limitation 
of nature, and beginning of existence. But 
from this it will not follow, that it must al- 
ways have this implication when applied to 
Christ, and that therefore it is utterly inappli- 
cable to his divine nature. 

You will admit, that the foregoing propo- 
sitions cannot be called in question, without 
departing from the principles of reason. They 
recommend themselves to the good sense of 
every candid man. But if they are true, then 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 63 

the hypothesis in question must be false, and 
all the arguments which repose upon it must 
fall to the ground. And therefore Christ may 
be the Son of God as to his divine nature — 
because it is not necessary that' the term son 
should always imply beginning of existence. 
But if the supposition, that the term son must 
always imply beginning of existence, is ground- 
less, then the fourth and fifth propositions of 
Dr. Clarke are without foundation. For, by 
critically examining them, you will find that 
they repose on this supposition. 

Beginning of existence is not necessarily 
the implication of the term son, in all its pos- 
sible applications. Therefore Jesus Christ 
may be the Son of God as to his divine nature. 

In reference to essential existence, the son 
is equal in duration to his father. Therefore 
Christ is the Son of God as to his divine na- 
ture. 

Let me again remark, that my faith in the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ is not founded in 
metaphysical reasonings — but on the Word 
of God. Yet correct reasoning on metaphysi- 
cal grounds is so far from being opposed to 
the doctrine in question, that it is rather in 



64 ON THE ETERNAL 

favour of it, as you will see by the last para- 
graphs in this letter. That the conclusions in 
those paragraphs are founded on principles of 
truth, and correctly drawn, I submit to the 
determination of your own judgment, on a 
candid review of what I have written to you. 
I am yours affectionately, 

W B . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 65 



LETTER VII. 

St. Louis, May 24th, 1823. 

My Dear S , - 

It may be proper, before we proceed 
any further, to stop for a moment, in order to 
view Dr. Clarke's metaphysical objections 
against the Eternal Sonship of Christ, in a 
light somewhat different from any in which 
we have before considered them. 

From an attentive review of these objec- 
tions, it will be found that they all ultimately 
terminate in the supposition, that the term son 
necessarily implies beginning of existence. 
And hence the conclusion, that this term 
cannot be applied to the divine nature of 
Christ, forasmuch as this nature is from 
eternity. For the whole conclusion of his 

arguments looks ultimately to the eternity of 
6 * 



66 ON THE ETERNAL 

the divine nature of Christ, in which begin 
ning of existence is impossible. 

It is true, that the first two of his meta- 
physical propositions proceed on the idea of 
antecedence ox priority in the father in reference 
to the son. But it is to be remarked, that the 
argument proceeds from the idea of priority, 
to that of beginning to exist ; for that being to 
whom another is prior must have begun to 
exist, and therefore can have no claim to 
existence from eternity. The two latter of 
these metaphysical propositions are founded 
directly, and the two former indirectly, on the 
idea of beginning to exist, as it stands opposed 
to that of existence from eternity. 

There is, however, another difference be- 
tween these two sets of propositions. The 
idea of priority does not necessarily exclude 
the idea of beginning to be. One being may 
be prior to another, and yet both of them may 
have begun to exist. 

I have made these observations in order to 
remark, that the first principle which I have 
endeavoured to establish, lies with equal force 
against all the propositions in question. This 
principle is, that the son, in reference to 



SONSHir OF CHRIST. 67 

essential existence, is equal in duration to his 
father. 

I shall now proceed, according to promise, 
to bring this principle to bear, in a more 
particular manner, on the arguments of Dr. 
Clarke. 

The Doctor reasons thus: "If Christ be 
the Son of God as to his divine nature, then 
he cannot be eternal: for son implies a father ', 
and father implies, in reference to son, prece- 
dency in time, if not in nature too. Father 
and son imply the idea of generation, and 
generation implies time in which it ivas ef- 
fected, and time also antecedent to such gene- 
ration." But from the principle which I have 
laid down above, and the truth of which I am 
persuaded has been fully established, the 
inference will be just the reverse of that which 
is found in the above argument. For if Christ 
is the Son of God as to his divine nature, then 
he must be eternal : for son implies, in refe- 
rence to essential existence, coeval being 
between the father and the son. God the 
Father has existed from eternity ; therefore 
Jesus Christ, his own proper Son, must be 
eternal. The Eternal Sonship of Christ, there- 



68 ON THE ETERNAL 

fore, on this principle, follows from the impli- 
cation of the term son. 

The proposition of Dr. Clarke, now in ques- 
tion, appears, at the first view, as being plau- 
sible. But this plausibility disappears, the 
moment we discover that he reasons from the 
implication of the term son, in reference to 
personal existence, in order to draw a conclu- 
sion against an idea conveyed by the same 
term respecting essential being. The absurd- 
ity of such reasoning is sufficiently manifest. 
To build an argument on an idea conveyed 
by the term son in relation to personal being, 
in order to bring out a conclusion in reference 
to essential existence, is so sophistical, unfair, 
and absurd, that it will be difficult for any one 
who makes the discovery, not to feel displea- 
sure at such quibbling. 

Father and son do indeed imply generation. 
But generation is not the beginning of exist- 
ence ; but an operation acting on previous ex- 
istence, and bringing forward essential being, 
in order to its manifestation in personal exist- 
ence. And hence we may discover, that 
generation implies essential being in both the 
father and the son antecedent to generation 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 69 

itself — yea, that the father and the son in this 
being are coequal in duration. Therefore, as 
the present question concerns the divine nature 
of Christ, the essence of Deity, this divine 
nature may be the Son of God — because, in 
essential being, the duration of the father and 

the son is the same. Now, my dear S ., 

where shall we find the proposition of our 
opponents ? Has it not fled away, like the 
chaff before a mighty wind? 

The next proposition of Dr. Clarke runs 
thus : " If Christ be the Son of God as to his 
divine nature, then the father is of necessity 
prior , and consequently superior to him." 

No doubt you have often observed, that 
when men once presume that they occupy the 
ground of truth, they then advance forward 
with increasing boldness, regardless of the 
absurdities into which they plunge themselves. 
You have another opportunity of making such 
an observation in the case before us. The 
objector, occupying the fallacious ground 
which he had assumed, appears greatly to 
increase the measure and boldness of his steps, 
in the proposition in question. In drawing 
the conclusion contained in it, as if it resulted 



70 ON THE ETERNAL 

from the " necessity" of things, he must have 
had great confidence that his arguments were 
founded in unalterable truth. But alas ! how 
mistaken ! Truth would have led him to a 
conclusion directly opposite. If Christ is the 
Son of God as to his divine nature, then the 
Father is neither prior nor superior to him, in 
regard to this nature. Because a father and 
his son, in reference to essential being, are 
coeval in duration, and consubstantial in 
nature, with each other. Thus w 7 e see, that, 
as the question does not relate to the mani- 
festation of Christ in the world, but to his 
divine nature, the essence of Deity, the objec- 
tion under consideration is as light as vanity. 
It has no force whatever against the Eternal 
Sonship of Christ. 

The Doctor has conceived his next objec- 
tion in the following words : " Again, if this 
divine nature were begotten of the Father, then 
it must be in time, i. e. there w r as a period in 
which it did not exist, and a period when it 
began to exist. This destroys the eternity of 
our blessed Lord, and robs him at once of his 
Godhead." 

In casting a discriminating eye over this 



SON SHIP OF CHRIST. 71 

proposition, you will at once discover that the 
idea of generation is here confounded with 
that of creation. To be begotten, and to begin 
to eccisty in the language of the proposition, is 
the same thing. For the act of begetting is 
here made the proximate cause of being begot- 
ten, and of beginning to exist. Indeed the 
supposition, that being begotten and begin- 
ning to exist signify the same thing, is the 
very pivot on which the whole argument turns. 
For if the thing begotten existed before the 
act of begetting, as most evidently it does 
according to the principle before laid down, 
then the divine nature of Christ may have 
been begotten, and yet have existed from 
eternity. 

The notion that being begotten, and be- 
ginning to exist, is the same thing, is so ab- 
surd, that to mention it is to confute it. Ge- 
neration operates on previous existence, and 
causes it to approximate toward develope- 
ment. The act of generation is the act of a 
limited agent, whose power is infinitely inca- 
pable of producing something from nothing. 
But the act of creating, which gives begin- 
ning to existence, can be performed by Al- 



72 ON THE ETERNAL 

mighty God only. That the act of generation 
is subsequent to existence in both the father 
and the son, is too evident to be denied — be- 
cause the denial of it would lead to this con- 
clusion, that every man who is a father has 
possessed power to create. But such a thought 
is pregnant with consequences of the most 
dreadful nature. 

Therefore, as the idea of generation neces- 
sarily implies previous existence in the thing 
begotten, the divine nature of Christ may have 
been begotten of the Father, without there 
being " a period when it began to exist. 55 
And therefore the doctrine which I have es- 
poused does not " destroy the eternity of our 
blessed Lord," nor " rob him at once of his 
Godhead." 

Under the delusive thought in which the 
idea of creation is confounded with that of 
generation, the Doctor proceeds to lay down 
his fifth and final proposition, in which w T e 
have already, in a former letter, noticed the 
character of uncommon rashness. It follows. 
" To say he was begotten from all eternity, is, 
in my opinion, absurd ; and the phrase Eternal 
Son, is a positive self-contradiction. Eternity 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 73 

is that which has had no beginnings nor stands 
in any reference to time. Son supposes time, 
generation, and father, and time also antece- 
dent to such generation. Therefore the con- 
junction of these two terms son and eternity 
is absolutely impossible, as they imply essen- 
tially different and opposite ideas." 

In reply to this I would remark, that in 
order to maintain the Eternal Sonship of Christ, 
it is not necessary to contend that the Son of 
God was begotten from all eternity. For, to 
be begotten, is not to begin to exist — but to 
receive the operation of a certain cause on 
essential being previously existing, by which 
such being begins to approximate toward 
personal manifestation. For the son, in refe- 
rence to essential being, is coequal in duration 
with the father, as we have before abundantly 
proved. And as the son supposes generation, 
so generation supposes the pre-existent state 
of the son, as well as the subsequent state of 
his personal manifestation. And therefore it 
is not necessary to maintain that Christ was 
begotten from all eternity, in order to support 
the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship of Christ. 
And hence it will follow that "the conjunction 
7 



74 ON THE ETERNAL 

of these two terms soil and eternity are" not 
" absolutely impossible" on the principles of 
truth — because they do not " imply essentially 
different and opposite ideas." For since the 
term son, when applied to man, implies essen- 
tial existence in the son coeval with that of 
his father — the same term, when applied to 
Christ, should imply existence in him coeval 
with that of his Father, who is eternal. And 
therefore Jesus Christ as the Son of God is 
eternal. 

Thus w T e discover, that in whatever view 
we may contemplate the objections raised 
against our doctrine, we shall see that there 
is no solidity in them. If the principle which 
I have brought to bear on these objections is 
correct, if the term son supposes existence 
antecedent, as well as subsequent, to genera- 
tion, then the arguments of Dr. Clarke are as 
unsubstantial as "the baseless fabric of a 
vision." And the impression which they 
make on the rock of truth, the Eternal Sonship 
of Christ, is no more than that produced by 
the thin vapour, floating along the mountain 
side, upon its flinty protuberances. 

That the principle here referred to is correct. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 75 

will be admitted, I think, by every man who, 
with candour and critical sagacity, reviews the 
subject. But if any should suspect, that in 
the arguments brought forward to establish it, 
there may be some lurking fallacy, I have 
another principle in reserve, in which no 
lurking fallacy can exist. "The term son 
does not necessarily imply, in all its possible 
applications, beginning of existence." I shall 
apply this principle to the subject under con- 
sideration, in my next letter. You may then 
expect something, relative to the absurdities 
resulting from the objections of our opponents. 
Believe me to remain, 

Yours affectionately, 

W B— . 



76 ON THE ETERNAL 



LETTER VIII. 

St. Louis, May 27th, 1823. 

My Dear S 9 

Our highest interest, as well as our 
first obligation, is to know God — to contem- 
plate him in the works of creation, providence, 
and grace — to form correct conceptions of all 
the attributes and relations in which he has 
revealed himself to us. But in doing this 
one principle is ever to be kept in view. No 
idea respecting these attributes and relations 
is to be formed, but such as is consistent with 
the infinitude of his nature ; and every term 
by which any idea concerning these attri- 
butes and relations is intended to be commu- 
nicated, is to be taken in such a sense as not 
to violate this principle. 

Now, in the light of this great truth, equal- 
ly bearing on theory and practice, let me pro- 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 77 

duce the principle mentioned in my last letter. 
" The term son does not necessarily imply, in 
all its possible applications, beginning of ex- 
istence." You will perceive, that this po- 
sition is in direct opposition to all the meta- 
physical objections produced by Dr. Clarke. 
For we must understand him as reasoning 
thus : " If Christ be the Son of God as to his 
divine nature, then he cannot be eternal : for 
son must always imply beginning of existence. 
This is its meaning when applied to man ; and 
we can understand it in no other sense when 
it is applied to Christ." That this is his 
meaning is manifest, not only from the con- 
struction of his propositions, but also from the 
principles which they involve. For if he did 
not intend to argue from the implication of the 
term son as it applies to man, he could hardly 
fail to perceive that his premises would con- 
tain no truth, and consequently that his con- 
clusions would be without weight. If he had 
admitted that the term son could be applied to 
Christ in a sense inapplicable to finite beings, 
he would have hurled, in a moment, the 
stately superstructure of his metaphysical 
argumentation into irretrievable ruin. For, 
7* 



78 ON THE ETERNAL 

if the inspired writers have applied this term 
to Christ, in reference to his divine nature, or 
if it be in any way admissible so to apply it, 
then, in such application, it cannot imply either 
beginning of existence, or any kind of limi- 
tation whatever. Thus he is obliged to take 
the term son in the same sense when applied 
to Christ as when applied to man ; that is, he 
is obliged to beg the question in dispute, be- 
fore he can advance one step in his argument. 
He is under the dire necessity of assuming his 
own side of the question, in order to found 
his reasoning on such assumption ! To what 
a wretched situation must a man be driven, 
when the cause which he has espoused, re- 
quires such support as this ! 

But this is not all. Were we to adopt Dr. 
Clarke's method of reasoning, and make a 
general application of it to the great truths of 
religion, into what a dismal region of error 
should we be led ! Suppose we were to argue 
from the simple implication of terms in refe- 
rence to man, in which implication the idea 
of beginning to exist is always included, and 
make deductions from this ground respecting 
God, where should we find ourselves in our 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 79 

final conclusions ? Should we not be led to 
infer the want of eternal existence in God, 
from every such term which the Scriptures 
have applied to him ? Should we not plunge 
ourselves into the most pernicious errors? — 
into the frightful gulf of atheism itself? 

The following observations are intended to 
expose the pernicious tendency of the reason- 
ing which I here call in question ; and to 
exhibit the absurdity of arguing against the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ, from the implica- 
tion of the term son. I am not insensible, 

my dear S , that it may require some 

fortitude to approach the horrible gulfs, which 
the general application of such reasoning 
would open to our view. But to cast our eye 
over them, for a moment, may not be without 
usefulness to us, as it may lead us to keep at 
a distance from an error, the support of which 
requires such a method of argumentation. 

In order to give more force to my remarks, 
and to make the destructive tendency of the 
reasoning on w T hich Dr. Clarke proceeds 
against the Eternal Sonship more manifest, 
by placing its fallacy in stronger light, I shall 
exhibit, opposite to his reasoning, a few pro- 



80 ON THE ETERNAL 

positions, framed on the same principle, and 
containing reasonings against some of the 
most important doctrines of religion. By this 
it will be manifested, that if his method of 
reasoning be admitted, then we must reject 
the most sacred truths of the gospel ; and that, 
therefore, we must discard the whole of his 
metaphysical arguments against the Eternal 
Sonship of Christ. 

God is one. No truth is more evident than 
this, or more universally admitted by Chris- 
tians. Yet we cannot sustain even this doc- 
trine, if we admit the principle on which Dr. 
Clarke argues against the Eternal Sonship of 
Christ. 

1st Parallel. 



An argument formed on 
the same principle against 
the Unity of God. 

If God is one. then he 
cannot be infinite; for the 
term one implies limita- 
tion; and limitatioyi and 
infinitude can never pos- 
sibly subsist in the same 
subject. 

Now, my dear S , no man will dis- 



Dr. Clarke 1 s argument 
against the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ. 

" If Christ be the Son 
of God as to his divine 
nature, then he cannot be 
eternal ; for son implies 
beginning of existence. ?; 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 81 

pute, that the most obvious implication of the 
term one is, that of limitation; and no man 
will deny, that limitation and infinitude can 
never meet in the same subject. You will 
easily perceive, that the proposition on the 
right side of the page assumes a form, and 
contains a principle, equally plausible with 
that on the left. They repose exactly on the 
same ground — the common implication of 
terms, in their application to finite beings. It 
will be impossible to deny, on rational prin- 
ciples, one of these propositions, without 
denying the other. And consequently we 
must reject them both, or be driven into the 
gulf of atheism. 

God is indeed one — but the term one must 
be so understood, as not to imply limitation. 
He is one in such a sense as is perfectly con- 
sistent w T ith his own glorious infinitude. So 
Christ is the Son of God as to his divine nature 
— but the term son must be so understood as 
not to imply beginning of existence. He is 
the Son of God in such a sense as is perfectly 
consonant w T ith his own eternal Being. 

That God is the Father, will not be called 
in question by any one, who receives the New 



82 ON THE ETERNAL 

Testament as being of divine authority. Yet 
even this sacred truth cannot be maintained, 
without rejecting the false principle on which 
Dr. Clarke argues against the Eternal Sonship 
of Christ. 

2d Parallel. 
Dr. Clarice 1 s argument An argument formed on 



against the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ. 



the same principle against 
the doctrine that God is the 
Father. 

If God is the Father, 
then he cannot be eternal; 
for father implies begin- 
ning of existence. 



u If Christ be the Son 
of God as to his divine 
nature, then he cannot be 
eternal; for son implies 
beginning of existence.''' 

You will at once discover, that the term 
father , in all its possible applications except- 
ing that in which it refers to God, implies the 
ideas of beginnings limitation, and physical 
imperfection, as much so as the term son. 
The plausibility of the proposition on the right 
is not less than that on the left. The one has 
no more truth in it than the other — because 
they rest on the same principle. They must 
both fall, or stand together ; and they must 
both fall — because they are founded in false- 
hood, and would lead us, in the inferences 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 



83 



naturally resulting from them, into the horrid 
gulf, from which we just turned away with 
abhorrence. 

God is the Father, in such a sense as is not 
applicable to any other being. Christ is the 
Son of God, as to his divine nature, in such a 
sense as cannot be referred to created exist- 
ence. 

I shall advance one step further. That Je- 
sus Christ is the Son of God as to his human 
nature, will be denied by none. Yet even 
this doctrine cannot be supported while we 
maintain the principle on which Dr. Clarke 
argues against the Eternal Sonship of Christ. 

3d Parallel. 
Dr. Clarke's argument An argument formed on 

the same principle against 
the Sonship of Christ as to 
his hitman nature. 

If Christ be the Son of 
God as to his human na- 
ture, then he cannot al- 
ways have been holy ; for 
.so n implies moral depra- 
vity derived by natural 
generation. 

Do not these propositions put on equally 



against the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ. 

" If Christ be the Son 
of God as to his divine na- 
ture, then he cannot be 
eternal; for son implies 
beginning of existence.'" 7 



84 ON THE ETERNAL 

the same imposing aspect? Is it not un- 
doubtedly true, that, leaving Christ out of the 
question, every son born of a woman has come 
into the world in a state of moral corruption ? 
And is not the very circumstance of their 
coming into the world as the sons of men, an 
evidence that they are naturally unholy ? If 
we do not hold, that Jesus Christ is the Son 
of God as to his human nature, in such a 
sense as no other person is the son of God, we 
must admit the dreadful proposition on the 
right side of the page. What then would 
follow? Why, every thing most frightful — 
Enmity in Christ to God and his holy law ! — 
an utter unsuitableness and incapacity in the 
Saviour to execute the plan of salvation ! — 
with consequences the most appalling ! ! ! The 
whole scheme of redemption rises before me — 
The divine nature of all its principles — the 
richness of all its promises — the happy conse 
quences of its execution, running through the 
ages of eternity, and pervading, with the most 
salutary influence, the whole of the rational 
universe- — would, in the case supposed, be 
involved in a darkness unutterably dreadful 
and appalling.' 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 85 

But whenever we admit that the term son, 
when applied to Christ, in any respect, 
must be understood in such a sense as is en- 
tirely inapplicable to the sons of men, in that 
moment we remove the ground on which the 
arguments of Dr. Clarke are predicated, and 
the w T hole superstructure reared thereon tum- 
bles into ruin — so let it go — and in oblivion 
for ever sink. 

I might proceed, were it needful, to expose 
to view other dangerous consequences in- 
volved in the objections, w T hich have been 
levelled against the Eternal Sonship of Christ. 
But your intelligence and candour render such 
exposure unnecessary. You cannot remain 
ignorant, while reviewing the preceding re- 
marks, that the objections in question are as 
pregnant with falsehood, as they are dan- 
gerous in tendency. 

I have effected my object in the preceding 
discussion. In saying this, I shall submit it 
to your judgment, whether I depart from 
modesty. My purpose has been — not to prove, 
by metaphysical arguments, the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ — but to remove the obstructions 
thrown in my way to the proof — to remove 
8 



86 ON THE ETERNAL 

the rubbish under which some presuming 
theologians have attempted to bury this doc- 
trine. And I flatter myself, that I have accom- 
plished this purpose. 

Before I close this letter, let me again re- 
mark, that the doctrine in question is not to 
be proved, nor disproved, by metaphysical 
reasonings. It does not rest on such ground. 
But it reposes in safety on the broad basis of 
scriptural truth ; where, in our subsequent dis- 
cussions, we shall find it reared in divine 
beauty, and invincible strength. 

I am yours affectionately, 

W B . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 87 



LETTER IX. 

St. Louis, May 30th, 1823. 

My Dear S , 

There is a principle in sacred criticism, 
from which we can never depart, without ex- 
posing ourselves to the danger of falling into 
error. This principle, recognised in my last 
letter, requires us to understand the words 
used by the inspired writers, so as to accord 
with the eminence of the Divine attributes. 
Every term applied to God has a peculiar 
meaning, which it can have in no other appli- 
cation—because this meaning excludes every 
idea of beginning of being, of limitation in 
nature, and of imperfection in operation. 

This principle in sacred criticism, when 
considered in the abstract as a general rule, 
recommends itself so strongly to the common 



88 ON THE ETERNAL 

sense of mankind that it meets with universal 
acceptance. But no sooner is this principle 
brought to bear on any word or term, so as to 
expose any favourite notion to the charge of 
fallacy, than we discover a repugnance to the 
particular application. 

These observations are made with a double 
view. First, in order to notice an objection 
which you will foresee is likely to be offered 
against applying to the term son the above 
principle, as in my last communication to you; 
and secondly, to introduce some preliminary 
remarks to the scriptural proof of the Eternal 
Sonship of Christ. I am induced to unite 
these objects — because in effecting the one, I 
can accomplish the other. 

The objection, to which I allude, will 
probably be clothed in language like the fol- 
lowing : " If the term son, when applied to 
Christ, is not to be taken in its common 
implication when applied to man, in what 
sense are we to understand the term ? must 
we depart from the plain and obvious mean- 
ing of w T ords, in our search after truth in the 
Holy Scriptures ? When the words of inspi- 
ration are diverted by us from the current of 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 89 

their common meaning, we immediately 
launch upon the sea of uncertainty, and lose 
ourselves in the fogs of mysticism." 

The following observations will offer a full 
reply to this objection ; while I wish you to 
regard them as being introductory to the evi- 
dence, which I purpose to draw from the Word 
of God, in proof of the Eternal Sonship of 
Christ. 

1. The language of inspiration is indeed to 
be taken in the common and obvious meaning 
of the words employed. But this meaning 
must be qualified so as to attach no imperfec- 
tion to God. This method of qualification, so 
far from leading us into error, is the only thing 
that can prevent us from "launching upon 
the sea of uncertainty, and from losing our- 
selves in the fogs of mysticism." 

2. In Jesus Christ there are " two whole 
and perfect natures, the Godhead and the 
manhood. "* Now terms may be applied to 
these natures considered separately, or as 
being united in one divine person. But they 
must always be understood so as to accord 

* Articles of Religion. 
8* 



90 ON THE ETERNAL 

with the declarations of Scripture respecting 
the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ. 

3. The term son, in its application to Christ, 
is to be understood in its common and obvious 
meaning — But this meaning must be qualified 
so as to render the sense peculiarly applicable 
to Christ alone. 

4. There is nothing necessarily included in 
the implication of the term son, which renders 
it absolutely inapplicable to the divine nature 
of Christ — as we have already seen in our former 
discussions. 

5. The inspired writers have applied the 
term sort to the human nature of Christ — to 
his divine nature — and to both of these natures 
united in one glorious Person — as we shall 
see in subsequent discussions. 

6. It is not to be supposed that the impli- 
cation of the term son as applied to Christ, can 
be fully comprehended by us. Yet certainly 
w r e may form some correct ideas concerning 
this subject. In attempting to do this, let the 
following remarks be duly considered. 

7. We have already seen, in the foregoing 
letters, that while the term son, when applied 
to man, implies that the son, in regard to 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 91 

personal existence, is subsequent to his father, 
it also implies that he is, in reference to essen- 
tial being, coequal in duration with his father : 
Even so, while the expression, the Son of 
God, implies that Christ, in respect to his 
humanity, is subsequent to his Father, it also 
implies that he is, in reference to his divinity, 
coequal in the duration of his existence with 
his everlasting Father. 

8. As a human son possesses the same 
nature that his father does — even sb the Son 
of God possesses, in his divinity, the same 
glorious nature that is possessed by his infi- 
nite Father. 

9. As a human son has, in his essential 
being, existed coevally with his father from 
the time of man's creation — even so the Son 
of God has, in his essence of Deity, existed 
with his own divine Father from all eternity. 

10. As there subsists between a good father 
and a dutiful son, a close and strong union — so 
there subsists between God the Father and 
God the Son, a union infinitely close and 
strong. 

11. The love which a good father has for 
a dutiful son, and the love which such a son 



92 ON THE ETERNAL 

has for such a father, surpass accurate con- 
ception. So the love that God the Father 
has for God the Son, and the love that God 
the Son has for God the Father, are infinitely 
beyond the comprehension of created beings. 
I am yours affectionately, 

W B- . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 93 



LETTER X. 

St. Louis, May 31st, 1823. 

My Dear S '., 

I now approach the more important 
part of the subject, the scriptural proofs of the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ. 

In the prosecution of my purpose, I shall 
produce a number of passages from the Book 
of God, as arguments in favour of this doc- 
trine ; making some remarks on each, in or- 
der to place the argument which it may con- 
tain, in a strong and clear light. 

In doing this, I shall attempt to prove four 
things : — 

First. That the sacred writers have applied 
the term son to the whole person of Jesus 
Christ, to his Godhead as well as to his hu- 
manity. Second. That they have used this 



94 ON THE ETERNAL 

term with special reference to his Divinity. 
Third. That they have employed this term to 
distinguish his Divine nature from his hu- 
manity. Fourth. That they have used such 
language, as conveys, in a plain and forcible 
manner, the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship 
of Christ. 

To substantiate any one of these proposi- 
tions, will be to establish the doctrine in 
question ; and to evince the truth of the whole 
of them, will be to accumulate such evidence 
as might be expected, on a subject of so much 
importance. You will readily admit, that if 
these propositions can be established, all op- 
position to this doctrine should cease. 

In making an appeal to the Word of God, I 
shall hold myself bound by obligations of the 
most sacred nature, to approach it with a pro- 
found respect — to sacrifice the arrogance of 
reason, the pride of opinion, on the altar of in- 
spiration — and to submit, with the greatest 
readiness of mind, to the decisions of this 
standard of eternal truth. 

" The sacred writers have applied the term 
son, with its cognates, to the whole Person of 
Jesus Christ, to his Godhead as well as to his 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 95 

humanity. 55 * The truth of this proposition is 
evident from the following arguments. 

Argument I. "And the Word was made 
flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his 
glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the 
Father), full of grace and truth. 55 (John i: 14.) 
A few remarks on this passage are worthy of 
notice. 

1. That this text relates to Christ as the 
Son is manifest — because he is here called 
" the only Begotten of the Father. 55 The only 
Begotten — This is a cognate of the term son; 
and as such, it can refer to the Messiah only 
as he sustains the character of the Son, in re- 
lation to the Father. 

2. The only Begotten of the Father, and The 
Word made flesh, are evidently expressions 
signifying the same glorious Being, including 

*No person, who acknowledges the Divine au- 
thority of the New Testament, will deny ; that Christ 
is the Son of God as to his human nature, excepting 
such as call in question the doctrine of the Saviour's 
humanity. For the angel said unto Mary : " The 
Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of 
the Highest shall overshadow thee ; therefore also 
that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee, shall 
be called The Son of God" (Luke i: 35.) 



96 ON THE ETERNAL 

his Godhead as well as his humanity. For the 
glory of the only Begotten, is undoubtedly the 
glory of the Eternal Word — because the Evan- 
gelist asserts, " The Word was made flesh, and 
dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory, the 
glory as of the only Begotten of the Father." 

3. This glory is the glory of God. It is 
not the glory of the flesh — that nature which 
was made. But it is the glory of the Word — 
that nature which is Eternal. 

4. The specification which the Apostle 
gives of this glory abundantly proves the truth 
of this last remark. For the glory of which 
the Apostle here speaks is the glory of grace 
and truth, manifested in infinite fulness in the 
Person of the Word. Because the words of 
the Evangelist, without the parenthesis, run 
thus : « And the Word was made flesh, and 
dwelt among us, full of grace and truth" 
Was the grace which descended upon the 
world from the Lord Jesus, in such boundless 
plenitude, the grace of human nature? This 
grace was full beyond measure — without a 
parallel in the medium of its communication — 
astonishing and inscrutable in the means of 
its operation — in its object grand, sublime, 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 97 

incomprehensible — designed not only to be- 
stow eternal life on the sons of faith, but also 
to maintain a happy influence over the whole 
of the moral universe. This grace never 
could result from the humanity of Christ alone. 
Neither was the truth which Jesus has ex- 
hibited with so much brilliancy in the Gospel 5 
the effect of his human nature alone. This 
truth,— in system so correct, dependent, con- 
sistent, and perfect — in obligation so pure, 
elevated, and heavenly — in motive so impres- 
sive, energetic, and irresistible — w T as the truth 
of God himself. And therefore this glory of 
the only Begotten, is the glory of the Eternal 
Word, the infinite Jehovah. 

5. Now, since this passage refers to Christ 
as he is the Son, the only Begotten of the 
Father, and since his glory as the only Be- 
gotten, is the glory of God, the Word mani- 
fested in the flesh — it must follow, in the most 
forcible manner, that he is the Son of God in 
reference to his whole Person, to his Godhead 
as well as to his humanity. 

Believe me to remain, as ever, 

Yours affectionately, 

W B . 

9 



98 ON THE ETERNAL 



LETTER XL 

St. Louis, June 2d, 1823. 
My Dear S , 

It is very probable, that an objection 
may be urged against the argument contained 
in my last letter. 

"St. John, in the beginning of his Gos- 
pel, conveys no idea of Sonship in reference 
to Christ, until after he mentions his incar- 
nation. He speaks of him as the Eternal 
Word until he is made flesh, and afterwards 
as the Son of God ; and therefore it seems 
probable, that his Sonship has reference only 
to his human nature.' 7 

The plausibility of this objection, I have no 
doubt, has had great influence m leading some 
astray; and hence it may not be amiss to 
point out its fallacy. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 99 

1. The objection reposes on a circumstance 
which has no direct bearing on the present 
question. For, to give the circumstance of 
St. John's speaking of Christ, as the Eternal 
Word before his incarnation, and afterwards 
as the Son of God, any bearing on this ques- 
tion, it will be necessary to prove that by this 
the Evangelist intended to convey the idea, 
that the Sonship of Christ relates wholly to his 
human nature. For without such intention, 
the bare circumstance can prove nothing in 
reference to the doctrine before us. Now 
there is not the least intimation given that 
the Evangelist had any such intention ; and 
therefore the objection must be without force. 

2. St. John, so far from intending to com- 
municate any such idea as that embraced by 
the objection, teaches us to believe just the re- 
verse. For he informs us, in the 14th verse, 
that the glory of the Word is the glory of the 
only Begotten of the Father — it is the same 
glory beaming forth from the same divine 
Person. We are therefore taught, that the 
Sonship of Christ refers to his divine nature ; 
and consequently the objection is sophistical. 

3. Is it not very astonishing indeed, that 



100 ON THE ETERNAL 

men should have no hesitation in calling 
Christ the Eternal Word, and yet scruple to 
call him the Eternal Son ? For, if either of 
the terms, word and son, has superior claims 
over the other to the adjunct eternal, it must 
be the latter one. Because son, in the com- 
mon use of the term, conveys an idea of real 
continued being ; while word, in the common 
use of the term, conveys merely an idea of 
internal and external action. A word is a 
mere sound, a vibration of air, conveying 
some thought of the heart. These obser- 
vations are made, not to derogate anything 
from the glorious appellation, the Eternal 
Word, but to expose the absurdity of using 
this, while we reject the more appropriate ap- 
pellation, the Eternal Son. 

I acknowledge that both these Divine Titles 
are beautifully expressive, and equally ac- 
curate in their proper place ; but I must think 
that the latter is abundantly more expressive 
of the divine nature of Christ. 

I am very affectionately yours, 

W B . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 101 



LETTER XII. 

St. Louis, June 5th, 1823. 

My Dear S 7 

Having removed an objection in my 
last communication, I now return to that part 
of the subject which relates to the scriptural 
arguments in favour of the Eternal Sonship 
of Christ. 

Argument II. "Who hath ascended up 
into heaven, or descended ? Who hath gath- 
ered the wind in his fists ? who hath bound 
the waters in a garment? who hath established 
all the ends of the earth ? What is his name, 
and what is his Son's name, if thou canst 
tell?" (Prov. xxx : 4.) 

I shall not contend, as some, perhaps, would 
do, that this text, because it was written be- 
fore Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, fa- 
9* 



102 ON THE ETERNAL 

vours the doctrine of his Eternal Sonship. 
For, leaving other things out of the account, 
it is, in my opinion, introductory to a pro- 
phecy concerning events subsequent to the 
ascension of Christ into glory. But there are 
other reasons which induce me to believe that 
the passage contains the doctrine of the Eter- 
nal Sonship of Christ. The following remarks 
will bring these to view. 

1. There is, in this passage, a singular 
beauty, a peculiar propriety. The Redeem- 
er is presented to our view in the beginning 
and the close ; while the intermediate part re- 
lates to the God of justice as the Governor of 
the world. As though the prophet would 
teach us, that the Father is in the bosom of 
the Son, as the Son is in the bosom of the 
Father — that the Son is the first and the last 
as to all divine communications to us — that 
through the Son alone we can have the 
knowledge of God, and the enjoyment of his 
presence. 

2. It will not be called in question, that 
the Person mentioned as " ascending and de- 
scending," is the " Son," whose name is re- 
quired in the latter part of the text. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 103 

3. Now the Saviour, this divine Person, 
first « descended" as God, in order to take 
upon him the nature of man; and having 
taken it, he "ascended up into heaven as 
God-man," and took possession of immor- 
tality and glory in the name of his people. 
And this is the Son, whose name we ought 
to know. 

4. Therefore the name of " his Son," the 
Son of God, the Governor of the w T orld, " is 
Emmanuel, God with us," " God manifested 
in the flesh." 

5. And hence it will follow T , that the term 
Son, in this passage, is applied to the whole 
Person of Christ, to his Godhead as well as 
to his human nature. 

Argument III. " Who hath delivered us 
from the power of darkness, and hath trans- 
lated us into the kingdom of his dear Son : in 
whom we have redemption through his blood, 
even the forgiveness of sins." (Col. i : 13, 14.) 

1. It is manifest that the beloved Son, who 
is the Prince of the kingdom here mentioned, 
is Jehovah incarnate. For "we have re- 
demption through his blood, even the forgive- 
ness of sins." 



104 ON THE ETERNAL 

2. Now it is indubitable, that redemption 
can be only through the blood of that divine 
Person, in whom the Godhead is united with 
the nature of man. For the nature of Deity 
is incapable of suffering ; and man, in his na- 
ture alone, can do nothing meritorious, be- 
cause he can never exceed his duty. The 
manhood of Christ, being united to the God- 
head, was raised above obligation ; and hence 
all its sufferings became meritorious, and laid 
a foundation for the redemption of the world. 

3. Therefore this incarnate Jehovah is the 
" dear Son" of God, mentioned in the text as 
the Prince of the mediatorial kingdom ; and 
hence the term Son is applied to the whole 
Person of Christ, to his divine nature as well 
as to his humanity. 

Argument IV. < < God, who at sundry times, 
and in divers manners, spake in time past 
unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these 
last days spoken unto us by his Son ; whom 
he hath appointed heir of all things, and by 
whom also he made the worlds ; who being 
the brightness of the* glory, and the express 

*The pronoun his is not in the original. 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 105 

image of his person, and upholding all things, 
by the word of his power, when he had by 
himself purged our sins, sat down on the right 
hand of the Majesty on high." (Heb. i: 1-3.) 

1. In this passage Jesus Christ is spoken 
of only as the Son of God, and all the glory 
of both his nature and works is ascribed unto 
him as the Son. 

2. He is the Son as to the divine nature — 
for as such he is in possession of the Godhead. 
As the Son, according to this text, he is "the 
brightness of the glory," the Essence of Deity ; 
and, in respect to personality, " the express 
image of his Fathers Person." 

3. He is the Son as Creator and Upholder 
of all things; « by whom he also made the 
worlds ;" " upholding all things by the word 
of his power." These glorious transactions 
are spoken of him only as he is the Son. 

4. He is the Son as he is our Redeemer. 
" When he had by himself purged our sins." 
Here reference is had to his humanity, as be- 
ing included in the act of making atonement 
for sin. But this reference is not to his hu- 
manity separately considered, but in union 
with his divinity — because in these united, he 



106 ON THE ETERNAL 

effected the redemption of the world by 
purging away sin. 

5. Now, as Christ is the Son as he is our 
Redeemer, our Upholder, and Creator— as he 
is the Son as the very God, possessed of " the 
brightness of the glory, and the express im- 
age of the Fathers Person," who will dare 
to say, that the term Son is not applied to his 
whole Person ? and consequently, who will 
dare to say, that he is not the Eternal Son of 
God? 

Believe me to remain, as ever, 

Yours affectionately, 
W B . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 107 



LETTER XIII. 

St. Louis, June 8th, 1823. 
My Dear S ..... ., 

When our prepossessions in favour of 
any principle become strong by long con- 
tinuance, it is difficult to remove them, even 
by the most conclusive evidence. For every 
argument loses a large proportion of its 
weight, because it is seen through the me- 
dium of prejudice. The mind, under such 
circumstances, pressed by the power of evi- 
dence, yet determined upon the defence of 
its previous opinions, looks around for some 
spurious sophism, as a refuge from the force 
of argument before which it is compelled to 
retreat. Hence it is natural to expect, that 
an attempt will be made to parry the fore- 
going arguments, by an objection conceived 
in language like the following. 



108 ON THE ETERNAL 

"We must acknowledge, that in a few 
passages of the Scripture, the inspired writers 
seem to apply the term Son to the whole Per- 
son of Christ. But then we must understand 
them in such places as using the word rather 
loosely ; and therefore we should refer it to the 
humanity of Christ alone, because otherwise 
the passages will prove that Christ is the 
Eternal Son of God. But this cannot be ad- 
mitted on rational principles ; for it is incom- 
prehensible. The sacred writers call the Sa- 
viour the" Son of God, because he was born, 
according to Luke i : 35, of the virgin Mary." 

In reply to this, I offer the following ob- 
servations. 

1. It is far from being true, that the in- 
spired writers, in only a few places, apply the 
term to the whole Person of Christ. Such 
an application is made in a multitude of pas- 
sages. The few, how T ever, which I have se- 
lected from the many, are sufficient to establish 
the doctrine in question. 

2. The objection before us presumes, that 
the sacred writers have used the " word Son 
rather loosely ;" and indeed such a presump- 
tion is necessary to give any weight to the 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 109 

objection. For if they have not used this 
word, in reference to Christ, very loosely in- 
deed, then our arguments, drawn from their 
application of it to the whole Person of the 
Saviour, must be absolutely conclusive in fa- 
vour of his Eternal Sonship. I shall leave 
you, who consider reverence for the Word of 
God as a cardinal grace in the Christian, to 
determine what weight should be attached to 
an objection, which charges the inspired 
Apostles with writing loosely upon one of the 
most solemn and important doctrines of the 
Gospel. Nothing would induce me to repre- 
sent them as loose writers ; and had I inad- 
vertently been led, in the heat of disputation, 
to offer so gross an insult to the Sacred Vol- 
ume, with hearty repentance I would publicly 
retract it. 

3. This objection insinuates, that the in- 
spired writers, in seeming only to apply the 
term Son to the whole Person of Christ, have 
used language calculated to deceive. I must 
confess, indeed, that nothing appears to me 
better calculated to mislead than the language 
of the New Testament, if the writers of this 
divine book had no intention of communi- 
10 



110 ON THE ETERNAL 

eating an idea, that Christ is the Eternal Son 
of God. Inspiration apart, with the talents 
they possessed, and the language they used, 
something worse than looseness of writing 
should be attributed unto them, if they did 
not believe the doctrine for which I contend — 
for certainly they wrote as if they did believe 
it. Indeed, my dear friend, they did most 
assuredly believe it, and teach it. 

4. But the secret comes out — The Eternal 
Sonship of Christ, at all events, must be de- 
nounced. And to effect this desirable object, 
everything opposing must be removed out of 
the way. The wayward reason of man must 
be erected into a supreme tribunal, before 
which prophets and apostles, and even Christ 
himself, must be arraigned. " Rational prin- 
ciples," so called, rejecting everything " in- 
comprehensible," must constitute the rule of 
decision in this sovereign court. The inspired 
penmen must be represented as writing loosely, 
in order to afford an opportunity of giving any 
meaning, suitable to effect the object, to their 
language. But I protest against the deci- 
sions of this unlawful tribunal, and despise 
all its maledictions. I refer the trial of all 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. Ill 

doctrines to the Word of God, — a tribunal 
from which there is no appeal. The charac- 
ter of the inspired writers shall not be aspersed 
with impunity ; nor the credibility of the 
Scriptures exposed to ridicule, by these proud 
sons of a wayward reason. 

5. When the sacred writers are repre- 
sented as writing loosely — when nothing is to 
be considered "rational" which is "incom- 
prehensible," no great wonder need be excited 
by reference to Luke i : 35, as teaching that 
" the Saviour is called the Son of God, be- 
cause he was born of the virgin Mary." How- 
ever, this passage teaches a very different 
doctrine. Its most obvious meaning is, that 
that Holy Thing , the humanity of Christ, which 
was born of Mary, is the Son of God, not be- 
cause it was born of her, but because it was 
conceived of the Holy Ghost. 

These remarks are sufficient to expose the 
fallacy of the objection before us ; and there- 
fore our arguments remain in full force. 

If any suspicion should be excited, by the 
mere possibility that the term Son has been 
applied to the whole Person of ^Christ be- 
cause he was born of a woman under the su- 



112 ON THE ETERNAL 

pernatural influence of the Holy Ghost, the 
arguments which remain to be produced will 
place the doctrine in question on ground 
which cannot admit of such suspicion. 
Believe me to be, as ever, 

Your friend, 
W B- . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 113 



LETTER XIV. 

St. Louis, June 10th, 1823. 

My Dear S f 

"The sacred writers have used the 
term Son, with its cognates, with a special 
reference to the divine nature of Christ. ' ' This 
I purpose now to prove. 

Argument V. "He shall be great, and 
shall be called the Son of the Highest : and the 
Lord God shall give unto him the throne of 
his father David : and he shall reign over the 
house of Jacob for ever ; and of his kingdom 
there shall be no end. Then said Mary unto 
the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know 
not a man ? And the angel answered and said 
unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon 
thee, and the power of the Highest shall over- 
shadow thee ; therefore also that Holy thing 
10* 



114 ON THE ETERNAL 

which shall be born of thee, shall be called 
the Son of God." (Luke i: 32-35.) 

Although our opponents have endeavoured 
to maintain their cause by metaphysical rea- 
sonings, yet they appear at times disposed to 
call to their aid circumstantial evidence ; and 
they seem to think that the text now before 
us is not unfavourable to their opinions of the 
Sonship of Christ. However, when this pas- 
sage is duly considered, it will be found to 
raise an insuperable barrier in their way, and to 
afford an argument of an invincible nature, in 
favour of the doctrine I am maintaining in 
these letters. 

1. The expression, " the Son of the High- 
est," must have a special reference to the di- 
vine nature of Christ. For it is manifest from 
the language of the angel, that Jesus Christ 
is the king of Israel, " who shall reign over 
the house of Jacob for ever," " and of whose 
kingdom there shall be no end," as he is "the 
Son of the Highest." Now T the angel quotes 
these words from the ninth chapter of Isaiah, 
where this king of Israel is expressly called, 
"the mighty God, the Father of Eternity." 
Therefore, as Jesus Christ is the mighty God, 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 115 

the Father of Eternity, as he is the Son of the 
Highest, he must be the Son of God as to his 
divine nature ; and the expression, " the Son 
of the Highest," must have a special refer- 
ence to his divinity. 

2, But independent of this consideration, 
the language of the angel himself leads us 
directly to this point. " Therefore also that 
Holy thing which shall be born of thee, shall 
be called the Son of God." Now none will 
deny that " that Holy thing," w T hich was born 
of Mary, is the humanity of Christ. But the 
angel says, that this "also" shall be called 
the " Son of God," evidently referring to some- 
thing else which is likewise the Son of God. 
If nothing besides « that Holy thing," the hu- 
manity of Christ, is the Son of God, why did 
the angel use the word also ? His language 
most forcibly leads us to look for something 
besides the humanity of Christ, as being the 
Son of God — and this can be nothing but his 
divine nature. It is therefore incontestably 
evident that the expression, " the Son of the 
Highest," has a special reference to the di- 
vinity of the Redeemer. 

3. We would not be understood to mean, 



116 ON THE ETERNAL 

that the expression, " the Son of the High- 
est," does not include the whole Person of 
the Saviour. We know it does. But while 
it includes his whole Person, it has a special 
reference to his divinity — because the angel 
afterwards speaks of his humanity, as being 
"also the Son of God." The divine nature 
of Christ is the Son of God, in respect to that 
inconceivably glorious Relation which sub- 
sists between the Persons of the Trinity. The 
humanity of Christ is the Son of God, because 
it was conceived by the supernatural influence 
of the Holy Ghost — in consequence of which 
Jesus, in his human nature, " was holy, 
harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners." 

It is very singular, that any man of critical 
sagacity should be led to conclude, that, be- 
cause that holy thing which was born of Mary 
is called the Son of God, Christ is the Son of 
God in reference only to his human nature, 
when the language of the angel is calculated, 
in so strong a manner, to communicate an 
idea directly opposite. Is it the want of at- 
tention, or prepossession, that leads men into 
conduct so unworthy of their talents ? 

Argument VI. "Who is the image of the 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 117 

invisible God, the First-born of every crea- 
ture : For by him were all things created 
that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visi- 
ble and invisible, whether they be thrones, 
or dominions, or principalities, or powers ; all 
things were created by him and for him ; and 
he is before all things, and by him all things 
consist." (Col. i: 15-17.) 

1. In this passage the Apostle asserts the 
Godhead of Christ, under two glorious titles — 
" the image of the invisible God," and " the 
First-born of every creature." Both these 
titles relate to his divine nature — the first to 
what it is in itself, the second to what it is in 
relation to creatures. The last is the proof 
of the first. 

2. Christ can be the First-born only in re- 
lation to his Sonship ; for we can understand 
this term only in this sense. Besides, in the 
thirteenth verse, he is expressly called " his 
dear Son." 

3. Christ cannot be the First-born of every 
creature, in relation to his humanity ; for mul- 
titudes of men were born into the world be- 
fore he was born of the virgin Mary. 

4. No creature is called " the image of the 



118 ON THE ETERNAL 

invisible God." But Jesus Christ, as the 
First-born of every creature, is this Image ; 
the express likeness of the Person of the in- 
visible incomprehensible Father. God is in- 
visible, in certain respects, to every creature — - 
because he is incomprehensible. Therefore 
the whole of this passage evidently relates to 
that divine nature of Christ, which constitutes 
his equality with the Father ; and conse- 
quently he is the First-born as he is God. 

5. This is abundantly manifest from the ar- 
guments of the Apostle. In proof of Christ 
being the First-born of every creature, he 
states a glorious fact; " all things were crea- 
ted by him and for him,' 5 and therefore he 
must be " before all things." The universe 
was made by him ; and it was made for him, 
for his own glory, and the accomplishment of 
his own purposes. 

6. It is therefore certain the term First-born 
is here applied to Christ, with a special refer- 
ence to his divinity ; and hence he is the Son 
of God as to his divine nature. 

No one need ask, " How can Christ be the 
First-born of every creature ?" For, as to the 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 119 

mode of the divine existence, we know- 
nothing. 

Neither may any one suppose, that because 
he is the First-born of every creature, he must 
have begun to exist. For, to be born, is not 
to begin to exist.;. So far from it, that birth 
signifies a state of previous existence. 

But it may be asked, « What idea is con- 
veyed by the term First-born, in its applica- 
tion to Christ?" I reply, this term conveys 
the idea of Sonship ; and this, perhaps, ought 
to satisfy us.* 

*On this mysterious subject, suffer me to make 
a few remarks. 

1. To be born, is to come forth, not into existence, 
but into an active state of existence. 

2. Although God has existed from everlasting, 
yet we cannot say, that his active energy has always 
been in operation. He existed before all worlds ; 
and therefore before he exerted his almighty power 
to produce those worlds. When he arose to create 
the worlds, then he came forth, and put the attribute 
of power into a state of active energy. 

3. As the worlds were created by Christ, it may 
be said, that then, immediately in the act of crea- 
tion, he was bom as the Son of God, he came forth 
as the active Almighty Creator. In this sense, per- 
haps, he is the First-born of every creature. He, 



120 ON THE ETERNAL 

Argument VII. " No man hath seen God 
at any time. The only begotten Son, who is 

who existed from eternity, was necessarily active 
before the existence of every thing created. For 
his active energy gave all things being. " He is the 
Beginning/' the First active principle, u of the crea- 
tion of God. 7; And in a similar sense, he may per- 
haps be said to be begotten from eternity * that is, 
to be brought forth as the active Agent, from that 
period in eternity past, when duration began to be 
measured by finite existence. In a like sense, it is 
also probable, that the language of the prophet re- 
specting Christ, should be understood : " Whose go- 
ings forth have been from of old, from the days of 
eternity/' 

4. As to be born implies previous existence, "the 
First-born of every creature,'- 1 should be understood 
to mean, that Christ existed before his goings forth 
from the days of eternity, when he put forth the 
omnipotence of his active energy to produce the 
worlds out of nothing. Indeed it should be under- 
stood to mean, that he, as the First active cause of 
all things, possesses as the Son of God independent 
existence, and consequently eternal Being. 

The observations contained in this note, are offered 
on the ground only of probability. They are not in- 
tended, neither is it in their nature, to affect the 
truth of the doctrine discussed in these letters. 
Whether they are correct or not, is a question which 
has no direct bearing on this truth. For the reality 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 121 

in the bosom of the Father, hath declared 
him." (Johni: 18.) 

1. These words- afford an argument, which 
perfectly corroborates that which was last 
offered. They present the divine Being, as 
an unseen, incomprehensible object. "No 
man hath seen God at any time;" not that he 
has never partially manifested himself unto 
mortals ; for he often appeared unto the 
Fathers. But he has never been seen, in the 
fulness of his essence, by any creature ; for 
no created intelligence can so see him, as per- 
fectly to comprehend him. 

2. But " the only begotten Son," who is 
the image of the invisible God, perfectly com- 
prehends w r hat Deity is; for he " is in the 
bosom of the Father." And therefore, being 
possessedjwith the most perfect knowledge 
of what God is, " he hath declared him;" that 
is, he hath manifested God unto man, in such 
measure as agrees with the state of mortals, 
and the grasp of human comprehension. 

of Christ's being the Son of God from eternity, is a 
matter of fact revealed in the gospel; but how he is 
so, is a question regarding the mode of his existence, 
which we never can fully comprehend. 
11 



122 ON THE ETERNAL 

3. Therefore the only begotten Son is God. 
If he were not God, he could not perfectly 
comprehend the Father, nor suitably declare 
him unto the world. 

4. But if the only begotten Son is God, 
then the term Son is here used with a special 
reference to the divine nature of Christ ; and 
therefore it is manifest that the Saviour is the 
Eternal Son of God. There is no way of 
avoiding this conclusion. 

I am very affectionately, 

W- B . 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 123 



LETTER XV. 

St. Louis, June 16th, 1823. 

My Dear S , 

I have produced several arguments in 
proof that the sacred writers have used the 
term Son with special reference to the divine 
nature of Christ, In addition to these, let me 
offer a few more. 

Argument VIII. " God so loved the world, 
that he gave his only begotten Son, that who- 
soever believeth on him should not perish, but 
have everlasting life." (John iii : 16.) 

1. By the creation of "the world," God 
gave a direct manifestation of the infinity of 
his natural character and attributes, in par- 
ticular of his wisdom and power. By the 
redemption of "the world," he gave a like 
manifestation of the infinite nature of his 



124 ON THE ETERNAL 

moral character and attributes, in particular 
of his mercy and love. The proof of this in- 
finity, in the first respect, is to be sought, not in 
the number, variety, and magnitude of created 
things, but in the act of creation itself. For 
this number, variety, and magnitude, how- 
ever great, are, in their own nature, limited ; 
and therefore cannot, it seems, afford direct 
proof of the infinite wisdom and omnipotent 
power of God. But the act that brought 
entity out of nonentity, uniting two extremes 
infinitely separated, can be the act of nothing 
less than Almighty power. 

In like manner the direct proof that the be- 
nevolence of God is infinite, is to be sought, 
not in the happiness communicated, but in 
that act of the Father, by which he gave his 
Son for the redemption of the world. For 
the happiness communicated, however incon- 
ceivable, and whether flowing as a conse- 
quence of creation or redemption, being pos- 
sessed by finite subjects, must be in its own 
nature limited ; and therefore, it seems, it 
cannot afford a direct manifestation of the in- 
finite nature of divine love. But the act of 
the Father, by which he gave his Son for the 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 125 

redemption of the world, affords a direct proof 
of the infinitude of the love which is in God, 
if we admit that the Son is infinite; because 
nothing less than infinite love can bestow an 
infinite gift. If we deny that the Son is infi- 
nite, where shall we find any direct proof of 
the infinity of divine benevolence? I am ap- 
prehensive that then we shall look for it in 
vain. 

2. The language in the text will appear, 
on the admission of the infinity of the Son, 
very appropriate and beautiful, and full of 
sublimity and energy. The love of God will 
then be seen clothed in majesty worthy of the 
great Jehovah. The representation of the 
love of God in this text, puts on the character 
of an indescribable and boundless nature — 
" God so loved the world." No attempt of 
definition is made ; the proof only is given — 
"He gave his only begotten Son" — his own 
proper eternal Son ; and therefore he has given 
a direct manifestation, that he so loved the 
world as no created being can conceive — 
with a love infinite in its nature. 

3. But if we force an unnatural construc- 
tion upon the text, and make the expression, 

11* 



126 ON THE ETERNAL 

"his only begotten Son," mean, not the di- 
vine nature of Christ, but his humanity, we 
shall destroy the accuracy and beauty of the 
language of Jesus, and represent the love of 
God in a very contemptible light. God so 
loved the world. How? According to the 
supposed construction, he so loved the nu- 
merous millions of Adam's race, as to give 
for them one human being ! But where, on this 
ground, is the proportion between the ransom 
given and the world redeemed ? Where is the 
accuracy of the language of Christ ? and where 
shall we find the love of God? In what a 
mean and pitiable light does this construc- 
tion place the compassion of Jehovah ? Away 
with all such contemptible ideas ! God forbid 
that we should be so ungrateful as to repre- 
sent his compassion in such a light as this. 
God did, indeed, so love the world as to give 
his only begotten Son. He gave his infinite 
Eternal Son for the redemption of mankind — 
a ransom more than sufficient— a gift infinite 
in its nature, affording to the universe of 
worlds a direct proof of the infinity of the 
moral character of God. 
4. That the term Son, in the passage be- 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 127 

fore us, has a special reference to the divine 
nature of Christ, is evident from another con- 
sideration which the context affords, Under 
the title of "the Son of man," Christ claims 
ubiquity of presence, " No man hath ascend- 
ed up into heaven, but he that came down 
from heaven, even the Son of man, which is 
in heaven." Verse 13. In these words the 
Saviour of the world claims the glorious at- 
tribute of filling immensity with his presence. 
He was in heaven while upon earth. And 
this divine attribute, which can belong to none 
but the infinite God, the Son of man possessed. 
It is therefore evident that the term Son, even 
in this verse, has reference to the divinity of 
Christ. Now, if the Redeemer claims ubiquity 
of presence, the attribute of Deity, under the 
humble title "the Son of man," who can be- 
lieve that the august title "the only begotten 
Son of God," has not a special reference to 
his divine nature? The first of these titles, no 
doubt, has a special reference to Christ as God 
manifested in the flesh; and the second a 
like reference to his divine nature as a distinct 
Person, subsisting with the Father from eter- 



128 ON THE ETERNAL 

nity. Therefore Christ must be the Eternal 
Son of God. 

Argument IX. " But unto the Son, he saith, 
< Thy throne, God, is for ever and ever. A 
sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy 
kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, 
and hated iniquity ; therefore God, even thy 
God, hath anointed thee with the oil of glad- 
ness above thy fellows. And thou, Lord, in 
the beginning hast laid the foundations of the 
earth ; and the heavens are the works of thy 
hands. 5 "(Heb. i: 8,9, 10.) 

1. Nothing can be more evident than that 
the whole of this passage refers to Jesus 
Christ as the Son. For it is under this rela- 
tion, the Apostle presents the Redeemer to 
view throughout this chapter; and the text 
before us is introduced thus: "But unto the 
Son he saith." 

2. The Son, as the Prince Messiah, is the 
king of Zion (Psalm ii : 7, 8) ; and his inau- 
guration as such took place when he was 
" anointed with the oil of gladness above his 
fellows." The mediatorial kingdom, into 
the possession of which he was put by this 
anointing, he received from the Father (Matt. 



SON SHIP OF CHRIST. 129 

iii: 16, 17), and holds as the reward of his 
righteousness in the character of mediator, as 
is evident from the following words : " Thou 
hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity ; 
therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee 
with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." 

3. But the Apostle calls him Lord, and at- 
tributes unto him the government of the world 
on another principle ; namely, on the ground 
of natural right, as Creator of all things. 
" Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the 
foundations of the earth ; and the heavens are 
the works of thy hands." 

4. Therefore, we should understand his 
throne, in the first of this passage, as repre- 
senting the empire of nature — for this " throne 
is for ever and ever." The empire of nature, 
which Jesus holds as God, is unalienable and 
eternal ; but the mediatorial kingdom he is to 
deliver unto the Father, when the purposes 
for which it was instituted shall have been 
accomplished. (1 Cor. xv: 24, 25.) 

5. Jesus Christ is the Son as he possesses 
the everlasting throne of nature. For "unto 
the Son he saith, < Thy throne, God, is for 
ever and ever. 5 " 



130 ON THE ETERNAL 

6. Now, if Jesus Christ is the Son as he is 
the king of nature, if his right to reign as the 
Son is predicated on his having laid the foun- 
dation of the earth, and the heavens being the 
work of his hands, then most assuredly he 
must be the Eternal Son of God. 

7. But if we understand the throne in the 
first of this passage, as being the throne of 
grace, and the sceptre of righteousness as be- 
ing the sceptre of mercy — yet the conclusion 
will be the same. For the Son, as setting 
upon this throne, is God : « Unto the Son he 
saith, 'Thy throne, God.'" Therefore, 
w 7 hether we understand the throne in this text 
to represent the empire of nature, or the king- 
dom of grace, we are led by it to believe that 
Christ is the Eternal Son of God — -because it 
represents him as being the Son as he is God. 

I am yours affectionately, 

W B . 



SONSHir OF CHRIST. 131 



LETTER XVI. 

St. Louis, June 25th, 1823. 
My Dear S ..... ., 

We have seen, from a number of pas- 
sages contained in the Holy Scripture, that the 
inspired writers have used the term Son with 
a special reference to the divine nature of 
Christ. Let me call your attention to a few 
more. 

Argument X. "Because ye are sons, God 
hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your 
hearts, crying, Abba, Father." (Gal. iv: 6.) 
In carefully considering this text, you will 
discover, that it sustains the doctrine advoca- 
ted in these letters — because the term Son is 
here used with a special reference to the di- 
vine nature of Christ. Weigh the following 
remarks. 



132 ON THE ETERNAL 

1. The spirit that cries Abba, Father; in 
the hearts of believers, is the Holy Ghost. 
To call this in question is to deny the witness 
of the Spirit — a doctrine expressly taught in 
the Word of God. (Rom. viii: 15, 16; and 
v: 5.) 

2. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son 
— for " God hath sent forth the Spirit of his 
Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father." 

3. The Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son 
in reference to the divine nature of Christ. 
None will be bold enough to deny this, in 
order to say, that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit 
of the humanity of Christ. For this places 
the Holy Spirit utterly below the dignity of 
his infinite nature, and the glory of the char- 
acter which he sustains in the work of redemp- 
tion. 

4. Therefore Christ must be the Son of God 
as to his divine nature. For as the Holy 
Ghost, who is God, is the Spirit of the Son, 
he must be such as the Son is God. And if 
the Son is God, then he must be eternal — the 
Eternal Son of God. 

5. Thence you will discover, that the pas- 
sage before us has a forcible bearing on the 
doctrine under consideration ; and this doc- 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 133 

trine cannot be called in question without 
violating the plain meaning of this text. The 
language of the text is not capable of any 
construction, possessing the least shadow of 
plausibility, by which its evidence in favour 
of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, can, in any 
measure, be done away. 

Argument XI. " Go ye, therefore, and teach 
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
(Matt, xxxiii: 19.) 

Here let it be observed, 

1. The first name under which the Divine 
Being has revealed himself to man, is DTiSx — 
God. This word is in the plural form, and is 
so used to signify the plurality of Persons in 
the Godhead, as being under a certain relation 
to man. The relation which is signified by 
this divine title, is that which subsists between 
God and man, as being in covenant sanctioned 
by a conditional curse. This is the meaning 
of the original word. 

2. The revelation of the plurality of the 
divine Persons, is followed immediately by 
the discovery of the unity of the divine Essence, 
under the name mrr — Jehovah. Therefore 

12 



134 ON THE ETERNAL 

the full title of the Almighty is &rhx n;n > — 
Jehovah God. 

3. In the New Testament, the Greek word 
God, in the singular form, is used in the place 
of D^nSa. But then the persons of the Godhead 
are expressly revealed to us, under the distinc- 
tions of the Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost ; and to each of them the term Jehovah 
Lord, is equally applied. 

4. Therefore the name in which we are 
baptized is mm — Jehovah, in its application 
to all the divine Persons in the glorious Tri- 
nity — that is, in the name Jehovah, the Father, 
the Son, and the Holy Ghost — Jehovah God. 

5. Yet we are to remember that there can 
be no distinctions in the Persons of the God- 
head, implying essential inferiority or sub- 
ordination. The Father, the Son, and the Holy 
Ghost, are equal in nature and attributes — in 
essence, one undivided Jehovah. But it 
pleased the Son and the Holy Ghost to assume 
the character of subordination, in order to effect 
the redemption of the world. For although 
God, in his great love for man, purposed the 
redemption of the world, this purpose secured 
the honours of his throne and the rights of 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 135 

Justice. It could not be otherwise ; and hence 
the necessity of satisfaction in the plan of re- 
demption, and of the assumed character of 
subordination in the Son and the Holy Ghost. 
And therefore it is said in the Holy Bible, that 
the Son is sent by the Father, and the Holy 
Ghost is sent by both the Father and the Son. 
In the plan of redemption, the Father sustains 
the character of the sovereignty of the Godhead, 
requiring satisfaction for the sins of the world ; 
the Son sustains the assumed character of Me- 
diator, offering the satisfaction required ; and 
the Holy Ghost sustains the assumed character 
of Sanctifier, applying the benefits accruing 
from the satisfaction offered by the Son. And 
hence the propriety of our being baptized in 
the name of these divine Persons, in the order 
in which they stand in the text — because ac- 
cording to this order, we are again received 
into covenant and union with the divine Being. 
6. Now, if this view is correct, then nothing 
can be more evident than that Christ is the 
Son of God as to his divine nature. For we 
are baptized in that name which is applicable 
to the Son, in the same sense in which it is 
applicable to the Father and the Holy Ghost; 



136 ON THE ETERNAL 

and therefore this name must refer to the divine 
nature of Christ. The consequence is inevi- 
table, that the term Son in the passage before 
us has a special reference to the divinity of 
the Redeemer. No sophistry can avoid the 
force of this conclusion. For we must deny 
that the Son is the second Person in the Tri- 
nity, or admit that He is the Eternal Son of 
God. 

7. Were we to suppose that the term Son, 
in this text, applies to the humanity of Christ 
only, into what absurdity should w T e be led ? 
According to this supposition, we should be 
baptized in the name of the Father, of the 
humanity of Christ, and of the Holy Ghost. 
Thus the second Person in the Trinity would 
be left out of the solemn act of our consecration 
to God in baptism. Away with this idea, 
which is far worse than absurdity ! To men- 
tion it is sufficient to expose it to the rejection 
of every reasonable man. 

8. We are most assuredly baptized in the 
name of Jehovah, the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost — that is, Jehovah God. Therefore 
the Son is Jehovah ; and as such he is ever- 
lasting, the Eternal Son. Were there no other 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 137 

proof, than that which this text affords, of the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ, we should be obli- 
gated, as reasonable men, to receive the doc- 
trine as a truth of revealed religion. 

I am, very affectionately, 

Yours, in Christ, 
W B . 



12* 



138 ON THE ETERNAL 



LETTER XVII. 

St. Louis, July 1st, 1823. 

My Dear S , 

I proceed now to prove, that the " in- 
spired writers employed the term Son to dis- 
tinguish the divine nature of Christ from his 
humanity. 57 

Argument XII. " For unto us a child is 
born, unto us a Son is given; and the gov- 
ernment shall be upon his shoulder ; and his 
name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, 
the mighty God, the Father of eternity,* the 
Prince of peace." (Isa. ix: 6.) 

* "ly 73K$ literally, The Father of Eternity. To call 
Christ "the everlasting Father/ 7 appears to be cal- 
culated to mislead us — to induce us to confound the 
Person of the Father with that of the Son, and to 
suppose that both these divine Persons exist in the 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 139 

1. It is very obvious, that one of the most 
striking traits in this text, is the distinction 
which it makes between the divinity of the 
Messiah and his humanity. The "child 
born," and the "Son given," strongly mark 
this distinction. The humanity of Christ was 
" born" of a woman — but his divine nature 
was given by the Father for the redemption 
of the world. The gift of the Father was un- 
speakable (2 Cor. ix : 15.) ; and therefore this 
gift was not the humanity, but the divinity of 
the Saviour, the second Person in the Trinity. 
Now, according to this text, " the Son is given 

Prince of peace. Although the Father and the Son 
are in Essence eternally the same, indivisibly one; 
yet in Person they are distinct. For Jesus Christ, in 
the defence of his own divinity, his Equality, and 
Unity with the Father, particularly distinguishes his 
own Person from that of his Father. (John v: 17-47; 
viii: 12-30.) 

The Hebrew text, which is literally, " the Father 
of Eternity ," is accurately just, and conveys the 
most sublime idea of the Eternity of the Son. Eter- 
nity — that permanency of duration, which is without 
beginning, without end, without succession of periods 
in relation to Deity, emanates alone from the Infi- 
nite Being. It can only exist in God. 



140 ON THE ETERNAL 

unto us;" and hence the term Son must be 
employed here to distinguish the divine nature 
of Christ from his humanity. There is indeed 
no other light in which we can place this text, 
without departing from consistency. 

2. It is necessary to consider the " child 
born," and the " Son given," as distinguish- 
ing the two natures in Christ, in order to give 
consistency to the subsequent part of the pas- 
sage. Because these two natures, united in 
the Person of Messiah, constituted his ca- 
pacity for becoming "the Prince of peace." 
Their union rendered him " the Wonderful ;" 
qualified him to be our " Counsellor," and to 
sustain, as Mediator, " the government upon 
his shoulder." Therefore, nothing could be 
more proper, in a prediction relating to the 
nature of the Messiah, than to distinguish 
these two natures as existing in him ; and 
nothing can be more reasonable in us, than to 
understand the phrases, the child born, and the 
Son given, as being employed by the prophet 
to effect his object in making this distinction. 

3. That the term Son is here employed to 
distinguish the divinity of Christ, we may 
also learn from the appellations, which, in this 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 141 

passage, are given to the Redeemer of the 
world. The prophet calls him, " the mighty 
God, the Father of eternity." Now it is very 
obvious, that Jesus Christ, in reference to his 
humanity, "the child born,' 5 is not "the 
mighty God, the Father of eternity." There- 
fore he must be " the mighty God, the Father 
of eternity," as he is " the Son given." And 
hence the term Son must be employed here to 
distinguish the divine nature of Christ ; and 
consequently the Redeemer must be the Eter- 
nal Son of God. 

Argument XIII. " For what the law could 
not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, 
God, sending his own Son, in the likeness of 
sinful flesh, even for a sin-offering, condemned 
sin in the flesh." (Rom. viii: 3.) 

1. In this passage, in which the object of 
the divine mission, and the extraordinary na- 
ture of the Person charged with its execution, 
are exhibited to view, we have another in- 
stance, in which the term Son is employed to 
distinguish the divinity of Christ. "The like- 
ness of sinful flesh," is evidently an expres- 
sion intended to designate the humanity of the 
Saviour. For it was alone by the sufferings 



142 ON THE ETERNAL 

of his human nature, that he became H a sin- 
offering. 55 "Sin was condemned in his flesh, 5 ' 
by the perfect atonement which he made 
through his passion and death. 

2. " God 5 s own Son, 55 and "the likeness 
of sinful flesh, 55 in which he was sent, can 
never mean the same thing. The latter is evi- 
dently the veil of humanity, with which the 
Second Person in the Trinity w T as clothed 
when he sojourned among men ; and therefore 
the former, " the Son 55 who came in this like- 
ness, must be that divine Person himself. 
And hence we see, that the term Son is here 
employed by the Apostle, to distinguish the 
divinity of Christ ; and consequently the Re- 
deemer must be the Son of God as to his di- 
vine nature. 

Argument XIV. " Concerning his Son, 
Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the 
seed of David according to the flesh; and de- 
clared, to be the Son of God with power, 
according to the Spirit of holiness, by the 
resurrection from the dead. 55 (Rom. i: 3, 4.) 

1. The antithesis in this text, by which the 
Apostle beautifully contrasts the two natures 
of Christ, affords a strong argument in favour 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 143 

of the doctrine for which I contend. « The 
seed of David according to the flesh," and 
" the Son of God with power according to the 
Spirit of holiness," are expressions evidently 
antithetical ; the former relating to the hu- 
manity of Christ, and the latter, to his divinity. 
To deny this, is to destroy the energy and 
beauty of the passage. It is very natural, in 
a description of the Author of the Gospel, to 
represent him according to the ancient pro- 
phecies ; to place him before us as being, in his 
humanity, "of the seed of David," and, in 
his divine nature, " the Son of God with 
power;" and such a representation is no less 
required by propriety and truth. 

2. The expression, according to the Spirit 
of holiness, standing antithetically with the 
phrase, according to the flesh, must mean some- 
thing distinct from the humanity of Christ ; 
and from the very relation which these two 
expressions bear to each other, the former 
must be referred to the Godhead — because 
the latter undeniably relates to the human na- 
ture of the Messiah. " The Spirit of holiness" 
is, therefore, that awfully glorious and self- 



144 ON THE ETERNAL 

existent Spirit, whose Essence is uncreated 
holiness. 

3. It will not be denied by any, that the 
Apostle here attempts to describe Jesus Christ ; 
and that by "the seed of David" he means 
the human nature of the Messiah. Then we 
must believe that by " the Son of God with 
power," he means the divinity of the Saviour 
— or else admit the Apostle's description to 
be very defective and incorrect. The suppo- 
sition that the words, the Son of God with 
power according to the Spirit of holiness, are 
to be understood as conveying ideas of the 
mode of the incarnation, and the sanctity of 
the life of Jesus, charges upon this descriptive 
passage so much imperfection and inaccuracy 
as to render it abhorrent to every sensible 
man, who has not given himself up to the un- 
controlled influence of some preconceived 
and favourite opinion. 

4. The very terms in the text are calcula- 
ted to lead us to believe, that the appellation, 
" the Son of God with pow T er," is employed 
to distinguish the divinity of Christ. The ad- 
junct "power," attached to this divine title, 
carries with it the same force as the word 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 145 

mighty, when joined to that of God. The 
mighty God, and the Son of God with power } 
can apply only unto him, in whom exists 
independent and vital energy. 

5. By the resurrection of Christ, we are led 
to the same conclusion ; namely, that the term 
Son is here employed to distinguish the divi- 
nity 6f the Messiah. It is an indisputable fact 
that Christ was raised from the dead by his 
own inherent power (John x: 17, 18); and 
this very thing constituted the point of proof, 
that he was "the Son of God with power." 
But to be raised by his own energy, is to be 
possessed of the nature of God ; and there- 
fore to be " declared," " by the resurrection 
from the dead," " the Son of God with power," 
is the same as being declared possessed of 
the divine nature. 

Thus, under whatever aspect we consider 
this passage, it leads us to conclude, that the 
Apostle has here employed the term Son to 
distinguish the divinity of the Messiah. 

When candidly weighing the evidence 
contained in this text, in favour of the doc- 
trine under consideration, I must confess, that 
I have been much astonished, that any rea- 
13 



146 ON THE ETERNAL 

sonable man should call this doctrine m 
question. So strong and full is this evidence, 
that it affords sufficient ground, independent 
of every other passage, to produce faith in the 
Eternal Sonship of Christ. 

I am yours affectionately, 

W B- , 



50NSHIP OF CHRIST. 147 



LETTER XVIII. 

St. Louis, July 7th, 1823. 
My Dear S , 

" The inspired writers have used such 
language, as conveys, in a plain and forcible 
manner, the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship 
of Christ." This is the fourth proposition I 
promised to establish. 

Argument XV. " And we are in him that 
is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is 
the true God, and eternal life." (John v: 20.) 

1. The Apostle, speaking here of Jesus 
Christ as the Son, asserts that he is " eternal 
life" — -uncreated infinite vitality — existence 
independent, and happiness underived — the 
source of life to all living creatures, especially 
to man. 

2. As eternal life, he must be God ; and 
Iience the Apostle declares of the Son, "this 



148 ON THE ETERNAL 

is the true God." No being, except God, can 
possess eternal infinite vitality. 

3. And therefore the passage before us is 
directly in point. Jesus is the Son as he "is 
the true God ;" he is the Son of God as to his 
divine nature — the Eternal Son of the Ever- 
lasting Father. The language of this text 
plainly asserts this doctrine. 

Argument XVI. " For this Melchisedech, 
king of Salem, priest of the most high God, 
who met Abraham returning from the slaughter 
of the kings, and blessed him ; to whom also 
Abraham gave a tenth of all : first, being, by 
interpretation, king of righteousness, and after 
that, also king of Salem, w T hich is, king of 
peace ; without father, without mother, without 
descent, having neither beginning of days, 
nor end of life, but made like unto the Son of 
God, abideth a priest continually." (Heb. vii : 
1,2,3.) 

1. It is difficult to conceive how, by any 
language, the Eternal Sonship of Christ could 
be more strongly asserted, in a plain, though 
incidental manner, than it is by that compo- 
sing the above passage. The Apostle's prin- 
cipal object is, indeed, the establishing of 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 149 

the superiority of trie Redeemer's priesthood 
over that of Aaron, the Sonship of Christ being 
brought in collaterally. But this circumstance 
does not weaken the argument, but rather 
increases its strength. For if the Apostle 
exhibits the doctrine in so strong a point of 
light when speaking of it incidentally, how 
would he have spoken of it, had it been the 
principal object of his discourse ? 

2. Melchisedech is here presented to view 
as the type of Christ, in being "the priest of 
the most high God ;" " made, not after the law 
of a carnal commandment , but after the power 
of an endless life" (V. 16.) 

3. This Melchisedech, " having neithei 
beginning of days nor end of life, but made 
like unto the Son of God, abideth a priest con- 
tinually." 

4. Therefore the Son of God, the antitype, 
must be eternal. For if the type via.s without 
beginning of days and end of life, in order to 
make him like unto the Son of God — then the 
antitype, the Son, must himself be eternal — 
the everlasting Son of the eternal Father. It 
is impossible to avoid this conclusion. 

5. It will be useless to object: "Melchise- 

13* 



150 ON THE ETERNAL 

dech was not really without father, without 
mother, without descent, having neither be- 
ginning of days nor end of life, but is only 
represented as such by the sacred historian, 
who makes no record of his parentage, birth, 
or death, nor of any succession in his priest- 
hood, in order to make him a more perfect 
type of Christ." For this objection would in- 
crease the strength of the argument. Because, 
if Melchisedech was really a man, and it was 
necessary to represent him as having neither 
beginning of days nor end of life, in order to 
make him like unto the Son of God, to make 
him a perfect type of Christ — then nothing 
can be more evident, than that the Son of God 
is really himself without beginning of days 
and end of life. And therefore he must be 
the Eternal Son of God. 

Argument XVII. " Father, the hour is come ; 
glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify 
thee — And now, Father, glorify thou me with 
thine own self, with the glory which I had with 
thee before the world was." (John xvii : 1-5.) 

1. If we listen, with the candour which 
Christians ought to possess, and correspond- 
ing confidence in the decision of Eternal Truth 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 151 

himself, to this language of Christ, not a 
shadow of doubt respecting his Eternal Son- 
ship will remain, whatever may have been 
the previous state of our minds. 

2. Jesus Christ here claims the title of the 
Son of God, and addresses his Father under 
this character. He speaks of himself under 
no other character, than that of the Son. 

3. He speaks of "the glory which he had 
with the Father before the world was." Now 
this glory w T as the glory of the Father ; for he 
says, " Glorify thou me with thine own self, 
with the glory which I had with thee before 
the world was." 

4. Therefore it is manifest, that the glory 
of the Son is the glory of the Father. There- 
fore Jesus Christ, being as the Son possessed 
of the glory of the Father, must be the Son of 
God as to his divine nature. 

5. Jesus Christ here directly asserts, under 
the character of the Son, that he had glory 
with the Father "before the world was." 
Therefore he w^as the Son before the world 
was ; that, is from all eternity. 

I remain, as ever, yours affectionately. 

W— B~~ , 



152 ON THE ETERNAL 



LETTER XIX, 

St. Louis, July 17th, 1823. 

My Dear S ; 

I am persuaded that the doctrine we 
have been considering, supported by so many 
scriptural arguments, will be regarded by 
you as sustaining the character of truth, and 
occupying an important place among the prin- 
ciples of Christian theology. For divine in- 
spiration has clothed it with the fairest and 
strongest credibility, such as can be resisted 
only by prepossession or obstinacy. So many 
passages, dictated by the Holy Spirit, and 
having the most favourable bearing on the 
truth of the Eternal Sonship of Christ, must 
produce conviction in every considerate and 
candid mind. 

What adds weight to this last remark, is, 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 153 

that the list of scriptural arguments which I 
have produced, might be greatly augmented. 
By a multitude of other passages contained in 
the Holy Bible, teaching directly or indirectly 
that Jesus Christ is the Eternal Son of God, 
in connexion with various considerations aris- 
ing from the principal doctrines of Christianity, 
an opportunity is offered for a vast accumula- 
tion of evidence in favour of the doctrine be- 
fore us. 

But it will be admitted by you, that this is 
unnecessary. For if the arguments already 
offered do not produce conviction, the reason- 
able presumption is, that conviction is not to 
be expected from any imaginable accumulation 
of evidence. 

In the preceding discussion, we have seen 
that the Eternal Sonship of Christ is a doctrine 
founded in truth — that the metaphysical ob- 
jections urged against this doctrine are falla- 
cious — that other objections, arising from mis- 
taken views of the Holy Scriptures, are no 
less without foundation — and that the Holy 
Ghost, in many parts of the sacred volume, 
has set upon this doctrine the stamp of eternal 
truth. While, therefore, unshaken faith in 



154 ON THE ETERNAL 

the Eternal Sonship of Christ, as a revealed 
truth, is obligatory upon us, it becomes us, as 
the ministers of the Gospel, to engage in its 
defence. And to do so, we are particularly 
encouraged by the consideration, that the arms 
with which we are supplied in the Book of 
God, are abundantly sufficient to enable us to 
effect our purpose. 

Admitting, as no doubt you will, that I have 
proved — that the sacred writers have applied 
the term Son to the whole person of Jesus 
Christ, to his divinity as well as his humanity 
— that they have used this term with special 
reference to his divine nature — that they have 
employed it to distinguish his divinity from his 
humanity — and that they have used such lan- 
guage as conveys, in a plain and forcible 
manner, the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship 
of Christ, you will perceive that in defending 
this doctrine, we occupy a strong position. 
We stand on firm ground, the ground of truth, 
where the fullest confidence is inspired, and 
certain success insured. 

Frequently gratified with repeated reviews 
of this subject, in each of which an accession 
lias been made to the strength of my faith, I 



SONSHIP OF CIIPwIST. 155 

cannot forego the pleasure of noticing some 
of the inferences naturally arising from the 
preceding discussion. But I must defer this 
until my next communication to you. 
I am yours affectionately, 
W— B 



156 ON THE ETERNAL 



LETTER XX. 

St. Louis, July 21st, 1823. 
My Dear S , 

In this letter, which will close my 
communications to you on the present subject, 
I shall notice a few particulars naturally aris- 
ing from the preceding discussion. 

1. It is very dangerous to deny, that Jesus 
Christ is the Eternal Son of God. This posi- 
tion, evidently inferable from the result of our 
present inquiry, might be supported on the 
ground of a general principle — to deny reveal- 
ed truth is always dangerous. 

That the doctrine of the Eternal Sonship 
of Christ is revealed from heaven, is sufficiently 
evident from the preceding arguments. But 
it is not my design to press this consideration. 
I wish to urge the inference in a particular 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 157 

view as it has its bearing on the divinity of 
Christ. To deny that the Messiah is the Eter- 
nal Son of God, is virtually to call in ques- 
tion his Godhead, in doing which we plunge 
ourselves into danger of the most alarming 
nature. For the Arians can prove, and no 
man need deny it, that Jesus Christ existed 
as the Son of God before the world was (John 
xvii : 1-5). Now, if he existed before the 
world was, and is not the Eternal Son of God, 
then he must be a created Son, who was 
brought into being prior to the world, and by 
whom, as an instrumental cause, God created 
the universe. From this conclusion, which is 
downright Arianism, it will be impossible to 
extricate ourselves, if we deny the Eternal 
Sonship of Christ. 

We may, therefore, see how dangerous it 
is to call in question this sacred doctrine ; and 
we may discover, how greatly men mistake, 
when they assume the denial of the Eternal 
Sonship, as the best ground on which to meet 
the Arian heresy. To deny that Jesus is the 
Eternal Son of God, is to take a long stride 
toward Unitarianism. 

2. From the foregoing discussion we may 
14 



158 ON THE ETERNAL 

discover, in a strong light, and with no small 
degree of pleasure, the perfect accordance 
subsisting between the articles of our faith and 
the Holy Scriptures, in regard to the subject 
which has been under consideration. The 
first and second of these articles were evidently 
framed with a special reference to the Eternal 
Sonship of Christ; and w T hoever calls this 
doctrine in question, denies these articles. 

The first article in which our church pro- 
fesses her faith runs thus: — -" There is but 
one living and true God, everlasting, without 
body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom, and 
goodness; the Maker and Preserver of all 
things, visible and invisible. — And in the 
Unity of this Godhead, there are three Persons 
of one substance, power, and eternity ; — the 
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost." 

Our Church, you will here observe, in 
making this confession of her faith, expressly 
declares, that the Person of the Son is " of 
one substance, powder, and eternity" with the 
Person of the Father, and the Person of the 
Holy Ghost. She asserts that the Son is of 
one eternity with the Father : and in doing this, 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 159 

she professes her faith in the Eternity of the 
Sonship. 

You will further remark, in order to see the 
beauty, strength, and precision of this article 
in regard to its bearing on the Eternal Son- 
ship of Christ, that it presents to our view the 
infinite God, as a spiritual subsistence only, 
without having the least reference to the in- 
carnation : for it expressly declares, that he is 
" without body or parts." And yet it no less 
expressly asserts, that one of the divine Per- 
sons " in the Unity of this Godhead," this 
spiritual subsistence, is "the Son." Therefore 
the term Son is here applied, by our Church, 
to the divine nature alone of Christ; because, 
in this article, he is presented to our view in 
his spiritual subsistence only, as being " with- 
out body or parts." And consequently, ac- 
cording to this article of our faith, Jesus Christ 
is the Eternal Son of God. 

The faith of our Church, in her second ar- 
ticle, is thus expressed : — " The Son, who is 
the Word of the Father, the very and eternal 
God, of one substance with the Father, took 
man's nature in the womb of the Blessed Vir- 
gin," &c. 



160 ON THE ETERNAL 

It will not escape your notice, that our 
Church here chooses to use the term Son in 
preference to that of Word, as expressing the 
Agent of the action, by which God was mani- 
fested in the flesh ; hereby intending to pre- 
clude the supposition, that Christ is the Son 
of God in reference only to his humanity. The 
divine nature of Christ, that assumed the hu- 
manity for the redemption of the world,, is, In 
the language of this article, called "the Son." 
" The Son took man's nature in the womb of 
the Blessed Virgin." We must, therefore, 
acknowledge, unless we deny this part of our 
faith, that the Son existed before the incarna- 
tion, and without any reference to it. For the 
Son could not have taken the nature of man 
upon him, if he had not existed as the Son 
before this transaction. We must also believe 
that by "the Son" our Church means the 
divinity of Christ ; for it was this divinity that 
took the nature of man in the womb of the 
Blessed Virgin. 

You will likewise remark, that it is posi- 
tively declared, that "the Son is the very and 
eternal God, of one substance with the Father." 
And hence, according to this confession of 



SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 10 i 

our faith, he must be the Eternal Son — be- 
cause he is the Eternal God, and of one sub- 
stance with his everlasting Father. 

Thus we may see, that these articles of 
our faith perfectly accord with the Word of 
God, in relation to the doctrine we have been 
considering ; and that to deny this doctrine 
is to call in question these articles, and, what 
is still worse, to reject the authority of Heaven. 

And here let me observe, I must consider 
such denial an indirect attack made upon the 
articles of our faith ; and in defence of this 
faith I wish you to consider these letters as 
being offered. 

3. If we admit that the doctrine which w T e 
have had under consideration is true, as we 
must from the abundance of evidence produced 
in the preceding discussion, then, most obvi- 
ously, it must be our duty to defend this doc- 
trine, with prudence, firmness, and zeal. To 
the discharge of this duty we are forcibly 
urged, by various considerations. The inti- 
mate connexion between this doctrine and 
that of the divinity of Christ — the danger of 
denying it in the fearful consequences result- 
ing—the high responsibility under which we 
14* 



162 ETERNAL SONSHIP OF CHRIST. 

placed ourselves in receiving the ministerial 
office — the sacred obligations which arise 
from our having subscribed the articles of our 
faith, and promised, in our ordination, "to 
banish and drive away all erroneous and 
strange doctrines" from the Church of. God- 
all combine to press us to the same point- 
to the performance of the duty before us. 

With this reflection I leave you ; praying 
that you and I may receive grace from God 
to perform all our duties, that we may come 
at last to his Eternal Kingdom, through Jesus 
Christ. Amen. 

I am yours affectionately, 

W- B -. 



THE END. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: July 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



